MFA/4865/2021 of SMT S E VISHALAKSHI Vs UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD on 21 September 2026

1. SMT. S. E. VISHALAKSHI, W/O UMAPATHI C, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O HALE INAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR (T), AMBALAGERE (P), CHITRADURGA (D), NOW R/O NO.3512/26, 7TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 021.

2. HARSHA U, S/O UMAPATHI C, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O HALE INAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR (T), AMBALAGERE (P), CHITRADURGA (D), NOW R/O NO.3512/26, 7TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 021.

3. SMT. U. NETHRAVATHI, W/O S. E. SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YAERS, R/O HALE INAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR (T), AMBALAGERE (P), CHITRADURGA (D),

Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

HC-KAR

NOW R/O NO.3512/26, 7TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 021.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJULA NEMICHANDRA TEJASWI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DR. SANKARAN ROAD, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU – 637 001.

BRANCH OFFICE AT UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., REP. BY THE MANAGER NRUPATHUNGA ROAD KRUSHIBHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. MS. MGM TRUCKLINE, NO.7 RCC 206-261, SG MUTT ROAD, CHAMRAJEPETE, BANGALORE - 560 018.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 – R3; R4 IS D/W, V/O DATED 30.06.2022) ----

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2020, PASSED IN MVC.NO.7560/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, A.C.M.M AND MEMBER M.A.C.T AT BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

HC-KAR

IN MFA NO. 1613/2021

BETWEEN:

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DR. SANKARAN ROAD, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU – 637 001. REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJULA NEMICHANDRA TEJASWI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. S. E. VISHALAKSHI, W/O UMAPTHI, AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALE INAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR (T), AMBALAGERE (P), CHITRADURGA (D), PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.3512/26, 7TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 021.

2. HARSHA U, S/O LATE UMAPTHI, AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALE INAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR (T), AMBALAGERE (P), CHITRADURGA (D), PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

HC-KAR

NO.3512/26, 7TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 021.

3. SMT. U. NETHRAVATHI, W/O S. E. SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALE INAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR (T), AMBALAGERE (P), CHITRADURGA (D), PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.3512/26, 7TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 021.

4. MS. MGM TRUCKLINE, NO.07, RCC 206-261, SG MUTT ROAD, CHAMRAJPETE, BANGALORE - 560 018. (OWNER OF LORRY NO KA- 01-AD-1994)

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 – R3; R4 IS D/W, V/O DATED 30.06.2022) ---- THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2020, PASSED IN MVC.NO.7560/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, A.C.M.M. AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T. AT BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

HC-KAR

CAV JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals have been filed by the claimants and also the Insurance Company respectively being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.11.2020 passed in MVC.No.7560/2018 on the file of the learned XXII Addl. Judge of Small Causes Court at ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru. Factual matrix of the case:

2. On 05.09.2018 at about 6.00 pm, Sri. Umapathy.C Son of Channaveerappa was riding his Scooty bearing Reg. No.KA- 01-U-5481 from Babbur towards Hiruyuru City. At that time, a Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD-1994 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against the said motorcycle. Consequently, the rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Hospital. However, the Doctor declared him as brought dead.

3. The claim petition was filed by the claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased respectively. The Tribunal awarded Rs.13,98,392/- along with interest at the rate of 6%

HC-KAR

per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants and Insurance Company are before this Court.

4. Heard Smt. Manjula Nemichandra Tejaswi., learned counsel for Insurance Company and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N, learned counsel for the claimants.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No. 4865/2021 that the deceased was aged about 63 years. He was a retired teacher and he was also doing agricultural work. He used to get Rs.17,757/- per month as pension and he was also earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum from agriculture. Therefore, under the head of loss of dependency ought to have been considered by the Tribunal by considering the actual agricultural income. However, it has considered notional income in respect of the agricultural income which is not proper. Therefore, interference with the said findings is necessary. It is further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled principle of law instead of enhancing 12% per annum, 6% per annum was awarded and the same has to be modified. Making such

HC-KAR

submissions, learned counsel for the appellants pray to allow the appeals.

6. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seema Rani and Others Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others decided on 11.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 2323/2025 and also in another case in the case of Sameem Begum and Others Vs. K. Venkataswamy and another arising out of Slp. (C). No.18553/2023 decided on 14.08.2026.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company in MFA No.1613/2021 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd of personal expenditure of the deceased, even though respondents No. 2 and 3 are major and married children of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses to be considered.

8. It is further submitted that the family pension which the wife of the deceased was receiving ought to have been

HC-KAR

deducted by the Tribunal. However, the same has not been deducted which is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified in accordance with law. Making such submissions, learned counsel prays that the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement has to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has to be allowed.

9. To substantiate her contentions, learned counsel for Insurance Company has relied on the following judgments:

1. MFA No.927/2014 (MV) in the case of UII Col Ltd. Vs. Smt. N. Seethalakshmi and others

2. ILR 2012 JAR 2859 in the case of New India As. Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri. David

10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the findings of the Tribunal and also the documents available on record, it appears that the Tribunal while deducting the personal expenditure of the deceased, deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that

HC-KAR

50% of the deduction ought to have been considered by the Tribunal.

11. Having considered the said rival contention, it is relevant in this context to refer the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birendar and others reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 wherein it is held that “major married and earning sons of the deceased, being a legal representatives having a right to apply compensation and Tribunal must consider the application irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not”.

12. Having considered the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the deduction made by the Tribunal towards the personal expenditure is proper and appropriate. Therefore, interference with the said deduction is not warranted.

13. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering the agricultural income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum (divided by 12). However, the Tribunal considered only

HC-KAR

Rs. 4,500/-, which is on the lower side. There is no sufficient justification for the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants in enhancing the income of the deceased. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal under this head are proper and appropriate, and no interference is warranted.

14. As regards the other heads, no changes are made, and they shall remain intact.

15. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The MFA No.4865/2021 filed by the claimants stands dismissed. ii. MFA No.1613/2021 filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. iii. No order as to costs. iv. The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal along with the statutory

HC-KAR

deposits, if any, made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal. v. The Tribunal is directed to release the amount as per the award.

Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1