- 1 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23

RD

DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3741 OF 2020(MV-D)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2020(MV-D)

IN MFA No.3741/2020

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHAILA,

W/O B.THIMMESHA,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

2. KUM. NIKITHA B. T.,

D/O B.THIMMESHA,

AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.

3. PUNITH B. T.,

S/O B. THIMMESHA,

AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,

APPELLANT Nos.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,

REPRESENTED BY THEIR

NATURAL GUARDIAN

SMT. SHAILA (APPELLANT NO.1)

ALL THE APPELLANTS

R/O 1

ST

CROSS, MAIN ROAD,

- 2 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

GOPISHETTYKOPPA,

NEAR SIDDESHWARA CIRCLE,

DEVARAHOLA,

SHIVAMOGGA 577201.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K. V. SATEESH CHANDRA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. N. MANJUNATHA,

S/O N. NAGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,

R/O RAJALAKSHMI NILAYA,

MALERAKERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN,

SHIVAMOGGA 577427.

2. SUNIL S. M.,

S/O N. MANJUNATHA,

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST,

R/O RAJALAKSHMI NILAYA,

MALERAKERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN,

SHIVAMOGGA 577427.

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

B. H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA 577201.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI BENNI RAVISH CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 ;

VIDE ORDER DATED 10.08.2021 NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS

DISPENSED WITH)

*****

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT BY THE CLAIMAN TS

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD, DATED 27.11.2019

PASSED IN MVC NO.496/2018, BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA, FOR

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

- 3 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

IN MFA No.858/2020

BETWEEN:

1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

B. H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA.

REPRESENTED BY ITS

DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

NO.1137/947, 2

ND

FLOOR,

RUB BUILDING, A. A. CIRCLE,

SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI BENNI RAVISH CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SHAILA,

W/O B.THIMMESHA,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

2. KUM. NIKITHA B. T.,

D/O LATE B.THIMMESHA,

AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.

3. PUNITH B. T.,

S/O LATE B. THIMMESHA,

AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,

APPELLANT Nos.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,

REPRESENTED BY THEIR

NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER

SMT. SHAILA (APPELLANT NO.1)

ALL THE APPELLANTS

R/O 1

ST

CROSS, MAIN ROAD,

GOPISHETTYKOPPA,

NEAR SIDDESHWARA CIRCLE,

- 4 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

DEVARAHOLA,

SHIVAMOGGA 577201.

4. N. MANJUNATHA,

S/O N. NAGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST AND BUS OWNER,

OWNER OF INNOVA CAR BEARING

REG NO.KA-15-M-3656,

R/O RAJALAKSHMI NILAYA,

MALERAKERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN,

SHIVAMOGGA 577427.

5. SUNIL S. M.,

S/O MANJUNATHA,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST,

DRIVER OF INNOVA CAR BEARING

REG NO.KA-15-M-3656,

R/O RAJALAKSHMI NILAYA,

MALERAKERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN,

SHIVAMOGGA 577427.

D.L. No.KA-15-20110000300

VALID TILL 10.01.2031

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 ;

R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;

VIDE ORDER DATED 24.01.2020 NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 ARE

DISPENSED WITH)

****

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT BY THE INSURAN CE

COMPANY PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.

496/2018 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUD GE

AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. VI, SHIVAMOGGA, TO REDUCE

50% OF THE COMPENSATION.

- 5 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR

HEARING THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3741/2020 is filed the

claimants for enhancement and Miscellaneous First A ppeal

No.858/2020 is filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of

the compensation awarded by the impugned judgment a nd

award dated 27.112019 made in MVC No.496/2018 by th e

learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and A.M.A.C.T. VI,

Shivamogga, Bengaluru, awarding total compensation of

Rs.19,42,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of the petition till the date of realization.

2. It is the case of the claimants, who are wife, daughter

and son of the deceased B. Thimmesha that they file d a claim

petition claiming compensation of Rs.70,90,000/- c ontending

that on 14.4.2018 at about 2.10 p.m. when the decea sed B.

Thimmesha was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing

Registration No. KA 14/Y-6278 Towards Doddayerehall i village,

- 6 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

Honnali Taluk on Shivamogga-Savalanga Road, in fron t of

garden land of Onkarappa near Abbalagere Village, Shivamogga

Taluk, at that time, the driver of the Innova Car b earing

Registration No.KA-15/M-3656 coming from the opposi te

direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed aga inst the

deceased B. Thimmesha, due to which, the deceased s ustained

grievous injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the dead

body was shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital and after conducting the

postmortem, the body was handed over to the claiman ts.

3. The contention of the claimants before the Tri bunal is

that the deceased prior to the accident was hale and healthy.

He was working as a clerk in a private firm and also doing part

time job and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per m onth; He

was the only bread earner in the family and was con tributing

the entire income to the claimants. Because of the said

demise, claimant No.1 being the wife lost her husba nd and

claimant Nos.2 and 3 being children lost their father's love and

affection at their childhood and are suffering from mental shock

and agony. It was further contended that because of the rash

- 7 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the

owner and insurer of the Innova Car bearing Reg.No. KA-14/Y-

6278 jointly and severally liable to pay the compen sation of

Rs.70,90,000/- with interest and costs.

4. In pursuance of service of notice, owner of th e Innova

Car and its driver remained absent and as such, the y were

placed exparte. The Insurance Company filed its ob jection

statement stating that the owner and insurer of mot orcycle

bearing Registration No.KA-14/Y-6278 are necessary parties to

the proceedings. They have denied that the claimants are the

only legal heirs entitled to claim and prosecute th e claim

petition or that that they were economically depending on the

income of the deceased. They have denied the age,

occupation, monthly income of the deceased or their

entitlement of the compensation as claimed in the p etition.

Even the compensation claimed is excessive and exor bitant,

which is without any basis. According to the insur ance

company, the accident occurred due to rash and negl igent

riding of the deceased, who dashed against the car. It has

denied that respondent No.2 was the driver of the vehicle as on

- 8 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

the date and at the time of the accident. It is their allegation

that the police have registered a false case against driver of the

innova car in collusion with the claimants. They have admitted

their liability regarding the policy of insurance issued in respect

of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-15/M-365 6. It is

contended that the deceased, rider of the motorcycle was not

holding valid and effective driving licence and was not wearing

helmet as on the date of the accident and the liability of the

insurance company in respect of said motorcycle wou ld be

subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and hence,

sought to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues for consideration:

“i) Whether the petitioners prove that B.

Thimmesha died in an accident which was

occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of respondent No.2 - driver of the

Innova car bearing Reg. No.KA-15/M-

3656 on 14.04.2018 at about 2.10 p.m.,

near abbalagere village, Shivamogga

Taluk?

- 9 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for

compensation? If so, at what quantum

and from whom?"

6. In order to prove the case of the claimants, c laimant

No.1-wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 , and

three witnesses were examined by name Sri K. Ramali ngappa

as P.W.2, Sri Shantharajappa A., as P.W.3 and Sri Hoysala D.S.

as P.W.4 as well as got marked the documents Exs.P. 1 to 30.

The owner and Insurance Company of the offending ve hicle

have not adduced any evidence, but Insurance Compan y

produced Ex.D.1, a copy of the insurance policy which was valid

and was in force as on the date of the accident.

7. The Tribunal considering both oral and documen tary

evidence on record recorded a finding that the claimants have

proved that the deceased B. Thimmesha - husband of claimant

No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 died in a road accident

that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-15/M-3656 on

14.4.2018 at about 2.10 p.m. near Abbalagere Villag e,

Shivamogga Taluk when he was proceeding on Shivamog ga-

- 10 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

Savalanga Road in front of garden land of Onkarappa while

riding motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-14-Y- 6278.

Further the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the

deceased and dependant on the income of the decease d are

entitled for the compensation. Accordingly, by the impugned

judgment and award, awarded a total compensation of

Rs.19,42,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Forty Two Tho usand

only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

of petition till realization. Hence, the present Miscellaneous

First Appeal No.858/2020 is filed by the Insurance Company for

reduction and Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3741/2020 is filed

by the claimants for enhancement of compensation aw arded by

the Tribunal.

8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the part ies.

9. Sri Sateesh Chandra K.V., learned Counsel for the

claimants contended with vehemence that the impugne d

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding total

compensation of Rs.19,42,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lak hs Forty

Two Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

- 11 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

from the date of petition till deposit of the amoun t to the

claimants is meager and contrary to the material on record and

as such, is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation

as prayed for in the claim petition. He would further contend

that though the wife of the deceased has deposed th at the

deceased was working in two companies and was earni ng more

than Rs.45,000/- per month, but the Tribunal erred in taking

the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- p er month

ignoring the evidence of P.W.1 and also the salary particulars -

Exs.P.18 and 21 and the Tribunal erred in not award ing any

compensation towards future prospects. He further contended

that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of consortium to the wife and not to the children for loss of

love and affection and therefore, would contend tha t the

Tribunal was not justified in awarding the compensation by the

impugned judgment and award and sought to allow

miscellaneous first appeal filed by the claimants .

10. Per contra, Sri Benni Ravish, learned Counsel for the

Insurance Company contended that the claimants have not

proved the avocation and income of the deceased and thereby,

- 12 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

the Tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the

deceased as Rs.18,000/- per month, in the absence o f any

documents produced except Exs.P.18 and 21, which ar e

created documents, and false statements made by P.W s.3 and

4. He would further contend that after registration of the case

by the jurisdictional police, the charge sheet filed against

Chandrappa M., who is the owner of the motorcycle b earing

registration No.KA-14/Y-6278 and father-in-law of t he

deceased B. Thimmesha but not against the deceased B.

Thimmesha, who was driving the motorcycle without i nsurance

policy on the public road on the date and time of the accident.

Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration

50% of contributory negligence on both the deceased and

driver of the vehicle Innova car. He would further contend that

P.W.1, the wife of the deceased B. Thimmesha has ad mitted in

her cross-examination that the charge sheet is filed against her

father Sri Chandrappa M., who is arrayed as accused No.2.

Further Exs.P.18, 19, 26 to 30 are all created documents for

the purpose of the case and the evidence of P.W.3 i s against

Ex.P.19-the salary certificate. Therefore, he contended that

- 13 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and aw ard

passed by the Tribunal is not just and proper and s ought to

allow the MFA No.858/2020 filed by the insurance company and

dismiss MFA No.3741/2020 filed by the claimants.

11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the

points that arise for our consideration are:

“i) Whether the claimants have made

out a case for enhancement of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal

in view of documents Exs.P.18 and 21

and evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 in the

facts and circumstances of the present

case?

ii) Whether the insurance company has

made out a case to reduce the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal

on the ground of negligence in view of

the evidence of P.W.1 and the charge

sheet filed by the jurisdictional police

against the father-in-law of the

deceased? and

- 14 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

iii) Whether the insurance company has

made out a case to take into

consideration the contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased

in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of the present case?.”

12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and

perused the entire material on record including the original

records carefully.

13. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased B.

Thimmesha, is none other than the husband of claima nt No.1

and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3, who died at the young age

of 38 years in a road traffic accident that occurre d on

14.4.2018 at 2.10 p.m.,due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-15/M-3656

while he was proceeding on Shivamogga-Savalanga Roa d, in

front of garden land of Onkarappa near Abbalagere V illage,

Shivamogga Taluk as is evident by the material docu ments -

Ex.P.2 - a copy of FIR, Ex.P.24 - certified copy of the Charge

- 15 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

Sheet filed by the jurisdictional police, Ex.P.7 rough sketch. It

is the specific case of P.W.1, wife of the deceased that her

husband was working in a private company and also d oing part

time job and earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month.

14. In order to prove their case, the claimants p roduced

Ex.P.18, the salary certificate issued by the Manag er, D.

Mallappa and Sons, Nut Merchants and Commission Age nts,

APMC Yard, Shivamogga which depicts that the deceas ed was

working as a clerk since 2004 and was earning a sum of

Rs.10,000/- per month and a bonus of Rs.20,000/- pe r year.

As such, the deceased was earning an income of Rs.1 ,40,000/-

per year. In that regard, the author - P.W.4 - Sri Hoysala D.S.,

has been examine and nothing has been elicited in h is cross-

examination to disbelieve the said income. The c laimants

have also produced Ex.P.20 and 21 - Certificate and statement

of payment details respectively to show that the deceased was

working on part-time as Bill Collector in Hamsa Sat ellite

Services, Shivamogga since January 2018 and was ear ning a

sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and nothing has been el icited in

the cross-examination of P.W.4 to disprove the said fact.

- 16 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

15. Though the learned Counsel for the claimants

contended that apart from working in two private co mpanies,

the deceased was also doing agricultural work with regard to

which the RTC are produced, the fact remains that t hey have

not stated what was the income. As such, in the ab sence of

any document, the said contention cannot be accepte d.

Considering Exs.P.18 to 21 and 30 accounts extract and the

evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, we can safely hold that the income

of the deceased as Rs.11,666/- + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.17,666/- per

month totally. Admittedly, the deceased died at the age of 47

years. But the Tribunal has not awarded any compen sation

towards future prospects. Therefore in view of dictum of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Co.

Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi reported in (2017)16

SCC 680, 25% of

the actual income has to be added towards future prospects of

the deceased i.e., Rs.17,666/- + 25% = Rs.22082.50 ps.

Considering the age of the deceased as 47 years, ma rried and

claimants are three in numbers, after deducting “1/3” towards

her personal expenses, the income would come to

Rs.22,082.50 -1/3 = Rs.14,722 per month. With rega rd to the

- 17 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

multiplier to be applied, in view of dictum of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of

Sarla Verma and Others -vs-

Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009)2

SCC (crl) 1002,

the appropriate multiplier would be ‘13’.

Therefore, loss of dependency would come to (Rs.17 ,666/- +

25% ( future prospects)–1/3

rd

(Personal expenses) X 12 X 13)

= Rs. 22,96,632/-.

16. Though the learned Counsel for the insurance

company contended with vehemence that the income of the

deceased was not proved by the claimants, the fact remains

that Exs.P.18 and 21 are statements of salary particulars and in

the cross-examination of P.Ws.3 and 4 -the authorities, nothing

has been elicited to disprove their statement. The insurance

company except producing Ex.D.1 the insurance polic y which

was in force as on the date, has not produced any c ontra

evidence to disprove the income of the deceased as stated by

the claimants. In view of the oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4

and the material documents Exs.P.18 to 21, the claimants have

proved the avocation and income of the deceased and thereby

the contention of the insurance company cannot be accepted.

- 18 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

17. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel

for the insurance company that the deceased was no t having

the policy of insurance of the motorcycle while riding as on the

time and date of the accident, the Tribunal ought to have held

50:50 contributory negligence, the same cannot be a ccepted

for the simple reason that in view of the provisions of Section

146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and keeping in

view the rough sketch Ex.P.7 prepared by the jurisd ictional

authority clearly depicts that the Innova Car beari ng Reg.

No.KA-15/M-3656 came on the extreme western edge of the

road and dashed against the motorcycle of the decea sed from

opposite direction where the deceased was on the extreme left

side of the road. As such, it is the negligence on the part of the

driver of the Innova Car and not on the part of the deceased.

As is evident from the material documents, the Trib unal also

has recorded a finding that the unfortunate accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova

vehicle and accordingly, the FIR, Charge Sheet and Rough

Sketch are filed. Admittedly, neither the owner nor the driver

of the Innova Car have challenged the Charge Sheet filed and

- 19 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

P.W.3 being the eye witness to the incident, has deposed with

regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Innova

Car. Thereby the contention of the learned Counsel for the

insurance that there was contribution of 50% negligence on the

part of the deceased in the accident cannot be accepted.

18. The contention of the learned Counsel for the

Insurance Company that Exs.P.18 to 21 and 30 are cr eated

documents cannot be accepted since the documents ar e

marked while recording the evidence and at that tim e no

objection was raised and now it is not open for the insurance

company to contend with regard to validity of the s aid

documents issued by the competent authorities who h ave been

examined as P.Ws.2 and 4. Even the wife of the deceased -

P.W.1 and Eye witness P.Ws.3 clearly have given the ir

statement that it is the negligence on the part of the driver of

the Innova Car and not the deceased.

19. The Tribunal while passing the impugned judgm ent

and award has proceeded to award compensation of

Rs.40,000/- towards Consortium only to the wife of the

- 20 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

deceased-claimant No.1 but not awarded any compensa tion to

the children - claimant Nos.2 and 3 towards love and affection

which is against the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of

Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.

Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018 ) 18

SCC 130 and affirmed in United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Others, reported in AIR

2020 SC 3076

, where each of the claimants (Rs.40,000/- each)

are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and as such, claimant

Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to a sum of

Rs.80,000/- towards love

and affection. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Trib unal was

justified in awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/- each towards

‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’.

20. For the reasons stated above, we answer point No.1

partly in the affirmative holding that the claimants have made

out any case for enhancement of compensation in vie w of the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and material documents Exs. P.18 to

21; Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the negative holding

- 21 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

that the Insurance Company has not made out any cas e to

reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the

ground of negligence in view of the evidence of P.W.1 and the

charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional police against the father-

in-law of the deceased as well as with regard to contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case.

21. After re-assessing the entire material on record, the

claimants are entitled to the just compensation as under:

Loss of dependency

Rs. 22,96,632/-

Transportation of dead body, funeral and other

expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000

Loss of Consortium to the husband-claimant

No.1

Rs. 40,000/-

Loss of love and affection to claimant Nos.2

and 3 (Rs.40,000 x 2)

Rs. 80,000/-

Total Rs.24,46,632/-

Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.19,42,000/-

Enhancement of compensation Rs. 5,04,632/-

22. In all, the claimants are entitled to a compensation

of

Rs.24,46,632/- and after deducting the compensation of

- 22 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

Rs.19,42,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the

compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced b y

Rs. 5,04,632/-.

23. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we pass the

following:

ORDER

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3741/2020 filed by

the claimants for enhancement of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is allowed in-part;

ii) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.858/2020 filed by

the Insurance Company for reduction of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

dismissed;

iii) The impugned judgment and award dated

27.11.2019 passed in MVC No.496/2018 by the

learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and

A.M.A.C.T. VI, Shivamogga, awarding the

compensation of Rs.19,42,000/- with interest at

- 23 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

the rate 6% per annum from the date of petition

till deposit is hereby modified and hereby

modified and the claimants are entitled for

enhancement of compensation at Rs. 5,04,632/-

(

Rs.24,46,632/- - Rs.19,42,000/- =Rs.

5,04,632/-) with 6% interest from the date of

petition till realization;

iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

compensation as stated supra within six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment;

v) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the

concerned Tribunal forthwith;

vi) After deposit of the enhanced compensation

amount by the Insurance Company, the

apportionment and release of the deposit would

be in terms of the award of the Tribunal;

vii) Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly;

- 24 -

MFA No. 3741 of 2020

C/W MFA No. 858 of 2020

viii) The statutory amount deposited by the insurance

company before this Court shall be transmitted to

the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith for realisation

in favour of the claimants; and

ix) Trial Court records to be transmitted to the

Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Nsu/-