Karnataka High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance vs Smt Shariff Ayesha Noorulla on 25 July, 2025
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4444 OF 2016 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2994 OF 2016 (MV-D),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2995 OF 2016 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2996 OF 2016 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2997 OF 2016 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2998 OF 2016 (MV-D),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2999 OF 2016 (MV-D),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4443 OF 2016 (MV-D),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4445 OF 2016 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4446 OF 2016 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4447 OF 2016 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5136 OF 2016 (MV-DM)
IN MFA NO.4444 OF 2016
BETWEEN
1. SMT. SHARIFF AYESHA NORULLA
@ AYESHA,
W/O LATE ASIF JAVEED,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. BABY SAADIYA FATHIMA
D/O LATE ASIF JAVEED,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
-2-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
3. SRI. M.R.JAVEED IQBAL
S/O LATE SYED ATHAULLA,
SINCE DEAD APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 ARE
LR's OF APPELLANT NO.3
THE APPELLANT NO.2 SINCE MINOR
BEING REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER CUM NATURAL GUARDIAN
THE ALPPELLANT NO.1
SMT. SHARIFF AYEESHA NOORULLA,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.28, 9TH A MAIN,
B.T.M. 1 STAGE, BANGALORE-560029.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.)
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DTD:21.10.2021.]
AND
1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO.24, HARSHA LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
YELACHENA HALLI,
K.R.PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560062
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7,
1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
WILLSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2,
V/O DTD: 21.09.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT.)
-3-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6894/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.2994 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
BY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING,
II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002
BY IT'S MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.)
AND
1. SMT SHARIFF AYESHA NOORULLA
@ AYESHA,
W/O LATE ASIF JAVEED,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
-4-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
2. SAADIYA FATHIMA
D/O LATE ASIF JAVEED,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
3. M.R. JAVEED IQBAL
S/O LATE SYED ATHAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
2ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR BY HER
M/G SMT. SHARIFF AYESHA NOORULLA.
ALL ARE R/OF NO.28, 9TH 'A' MAIN,
B.T.M. I STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 029.
4. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA,
24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI,
K.R.PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2,
V/O DT.03.07.2025 R1 AND R2 ARE TREATED AS
LR's OF DECEASED R3,
(R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1),
NOTICE TO R4 - D/W V/O. DATED: 27.01.2020.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6894/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.85,63,200/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
-5-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
IN MFA NO.2995 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
BY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING,
II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002
BY IT'S MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADV.)
AND
1. MS SADIYA FATHIMA
D/O LATE ASIF JAVEED
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
SINCE MINOR BY
M/G SMT AYEESHA SHAREEF
W/O ASIF JAVEED
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/A NO.28, 9TH A MAIN
BTM I STAGE, BANGALORE-560029.
2. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA
24, HARSHA LAYOUT
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
YELACHENAHALLI,
-6-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
K R PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-5600062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1,
(R1 IS MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER),
NOTICE TO R2 - D/W V/O DATED: 05.03.2020.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6897/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.60,000/- WITH INTEREST
AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.2996 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
BY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING,
II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002
BY IT'S MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.)
-7-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
AND
1. M. ATIF JAVEED,
S/O M R JAVEED IQBAL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/A NO.28, 9TH A MAIN
BTM I STAGE,
BANGALORE-560029.
2. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA
24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI,
K R PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 - D/W V/O DATED: 23.03.2021.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6898/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM MEMBER MACT AT
BANGALORE, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS 4,00,894
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALISATION.
IN MFA NO.2997 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
-8-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
BY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING,
II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002
BY IT'S MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.)
AND
1. SMT SHARIFF AYESHA NOORULLA
W/O DECEASED ASIF JAVEED
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/A NO.28, 9TH A MAIN
B.T.M. I STAGE,
BANGALORE-560029.
2. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA
24, HARSHA LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
YELACHENAHALLI,
K R PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 - D/W V/O DATED: 10.03.2020.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8547/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,97,570/- WITH INTEREST
AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
-9-
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
IN MFA NO.2998 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
BY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING,
II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002
BY IT'S MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.)
AND
1. M R JAVEED IQBAL
S/O LATE SYED ATHAULLA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. SRI ARIF JAVEED
S/O M R JAVEED IQBAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
3. SHRI ATIF JAVEED
S/O M R JAVEED IQBAL
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE R/OF NO.28, 9TH A MAIN,
B.T.M. I STAGE, BANGALORE-560029.
- 10 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
4. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA
24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI,
K R PURAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3,
NOTICE TO R4 - D/W V/O DATED: 06.03.2019,
V/O DTD: 03.07.2025 R2 & R3 ARE TREATED AS
LRs OF DECEASED R1.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8548/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,67,000/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.2999 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, I CROSS,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
BY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING,
II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002
BY IT'S MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV.)
- 11 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
AND
1. SHRI ABID ALI KHAN
S/O ATHAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2. SMT. RAISA SULTHANA
D/O ATHAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
3. SMT. ASFIYA ARA
D/O ATHAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
4. SHRI. ZAHID ALIKHAN
S/O ATHAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
5. SHRI. ATHAULLA KHAN
S/O DHAWOOD KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ALL ARE PERMANETN R/O NO.20,
I MAIN ROAD, I CROSS,
KAUSAR NAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560032.
6. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA
24, HARSHA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI,
K.R.PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5,
NOTICE TO R6 - D/W V/O DATED: 03.03.2021.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6206/10 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE & 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
- 12 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,47,000/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.4443 OF 2016
BETWEEN
1. SRI. M.R. JAVEED IQBAL
S/O. LATE. SYED ATHAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2. ARIF JAVEED
S/O. M.R. JAVEED IQBAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
3. SRI. ATIF JAVEED
S/O. M.R. JAVEED IQBAL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 28, 9TH A MAIN,
B.T.M. 1 STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560029.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O. THIMME GOWDA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO. 24, HARSHA LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
YELACHENA HALLI,
K.R. PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE 560062
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
- 13 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7, 1ST CROSS,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 D/W.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8548/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.4445 OF 2016
BETWEEN
SRI. M. ATIF JAVEED,
S/O M R JAVEED IQBAL
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO 28, 9TH 'A' MAIN,
B.T.M. 1 STAGE, BANGALORE - 560029
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO 24, HARSHA LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
YELACHENA HALLI,
K R PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560062.
- 14 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR,
NO.186/7, 1ST CROSS,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE - 560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 - H/S V/O DATED: 21.09.2021.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6898/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.4446 OF 2016
BETWEEN
SMT. SHARIFF AYESHA NORULLA @ AYESHA
W/O LATE ASIF JAVEED,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.28, 9TH 'A' MAIN,
B.T.M 1 STAGE,
BANGALORE-560029
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA
- 15 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO.24, HARSHA LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
YELACHENA HALLI,
K.R.PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560062.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7,
1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
WILLSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 - H/S V/O DATED: 21.09.2021.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8547/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.4447 OF 2016
BETWEEN
BABY. SAADIYA FATHIMA
D/O LATE ASIF JAVEED,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER CUM NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. AYEESHA SHARIFF NOORULLA,
W/O ASIF JAVEED,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
- 16 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
R/AT NO.28, 9TH A MAIN,
B.T.M. 1 STAGE,
BANGALORE-560029.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA
S/O THIMME GOWDA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO.24, HARSHA LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
YELACHENA HALLI,
K.R.PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560062.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7,
1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
WILLSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 - D/W V/O. DTD. 03.07.2025.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6897/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE, & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
- 17 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
IN MFA NO.5136 OF 2016
BETWEEN
1. SRI. ABID ALI KHAN
S/O ATHAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. RAISA SULTHANA
D/O ATHAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
3. SMT ASFIYA ARA
D/O ATHAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
4. SRI ZAHID ALIKHAN
D/O ATHAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
5. SRI ATHAULLA KHAN
S/O DHAWOOD KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.28,
9TH 'A' MAIN,
B.T.M. 1 STAGE,
BANGALORE-560029.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA,
S/O.THIMME GOWDA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO.24, HARSHA LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
YELACHENA HALLI,
- 18 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
K.R.PURAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560062.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.186/7,
1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
WILLSON GARDEN,
BELOW SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.,
BANGALORE-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 - D/W V/O DATED: 03.07.2025.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6206/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
- 19 -
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
All these appeals arise out of common Judgment and
award dated 31st December, 2015 passed in MVCs No. 6894,
6897, 6898, 8547, 8548 and 6206 of 2010 by the VIII
Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (SCCH-5), Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
has challenged the judgment and award on the question of
liability and also on compensation in Miscellaneous First Appeals
No.2994, 2995, 2996, 2997, 2998 and 2999 of 2016.
Claimants have preferred Miscellaneous First Appeals No.4444,
4447, 4445, 4446, 4443 and 5136 of 2016 challenging the
fastening of contributory negligence in an extent of 25% on the
driver of the car, as also seeking enhancement in the
compensation.
3. Facts leading to these appeals are that the
claimants/petitioners have filed the above mentioned claim
petitions seeking compensation for sustaining injuries in the
road traffic accident and also for the death of Asif Javed,
Nayeemunnisa and Naseemunnisa. It is alleged in the claim
– 20 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
petition that on 25th May 2010, Atif Javed was proceeding in the
car bearing registration No.KA-03/MD-1223 along with family
members to attend function at Tayalur, Mulbagal. It is stated
that the when car was moving on the extreme left side of the
road near V.Guttahalli of Mulbagal, at that time, the goods
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05/D-8428 coming from the
opposite direction, struck the car head on. Due to the impact,
the inmates of the car viz. Asif Javed, Nayeemunnissa and
Naseemunnissa, succumbed to the accidental injuries. Smt.
Shariff Ayesha Noorullah, her daughter Saadiya Fatima, and
driver-Atif Javed suffered grievous injuries. Contending that
the accident occurred due to the faulty driving of the goods
vehicle by its driver, petitioners preferred claim petition seeking
compensation.
4. In MVC No. 6894 of 2010, the petitioner No.1 is the
wife, petitioner No.2 is the daughter and petitioner No.3 is the
father of deceased-Asif Javed. It is contended by the
petitioners that the deceased was a Software Engineer and
earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month and the death of Asif Javed
had put the members of the family to mental shock and to
financial loss. It is also pleaded in the claim petition that
– 21 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
deceased-Asif Javed was also a Director in a Company, earning
Rs.3.00-4.00 lakh per month.
5. In MVC No.6897 of 2010, the guardian of the minor
petitioner, pleads that the petitioner aged three years was
travelling in the car and because of the accident, the child
suffered severe head injuries. Immediately, the child was
shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and then shifted to Mallya
Hospital, Bengaluru where the child was treated as an inpatient
from 26th May, 2010 till 02nd June, 2010.
6. The claim of the petitioner in MVC No.6898 of 2010 is
that, on the fateful day of accident, he was an inmate of the car
which was on its way to Tayalur of Mulbagilu Taluk to attend a
family function. It is pleaded that the petitioner was driving the
car. He was hale and healthy prior to accident and was working
as Software Engineer in M/s. Oracle India and earning
Rs.47,000/- per month plus allowances. It is further stated that
he had got an offer from Accenture Services Private Limited
with annual salary package of Rs.6,12,392/- to Rs.7,22,623/-
with bonus. He pleads that he was supposed to join the
company in May 2010. It is contended that due to the
– 22 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
accidental injuries suffered, he lost the job which he was
supposed to join.
7. The claim of the petitioner in MVC No.8547 of 2010 is
that she was an inmate of the car and due to the accident, she
suffered grievous injuries to her hand and leg. Immediately,
she was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. It is further
contented that she was a Software Engineer and was earning
well. As she gave birth to the child, she was not going to work
and now due to the injury suffered, she is unable to work in
future and as such sought for compensation.
8. In MVC No.8548 of 2010, the petitioners have
contended that the deceased was the wife of the petitioner No.1
and mother of petitioners 2 and 3 therein. It is pleaded that
because of the accident, victim-Nayeemunnisa suffered fatal
injuries and died on the way while she was being shifted to R.L.
Jalappa Hospital. For the loss of wife and the mother of two
children, the claimants have preferred claim petition seeking
compensation.
9. Petitioners in MVC No.6206 of 2010 have pleaded
that the fifth petitioner therein is the husband of the victim and
other petitioners are children of the deceased. It is pleaded
– 23 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
that the victim-Naseemunnissa suffered fatal injuries in the
accident and died on the way while shifting from R.L. Jalappa
Hospital to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment.
10. In response to service of notice, respondents
appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. The
substance of the written statement of respondent No.1 is that
on 25th May 2010, his vehicle met with an accident near
Mulbagal Taluk of Kolar District. He denies the petition
averments and submits that the driver of the goods vehicle had
valid driving license and the vehicle was covered under
insurance policy and accordingly, sought to fasten the liability
on the Insurance company.
11. Respondent No.2-Insurance company in its objection
statement contended that as per the spot sketch, there is no
deviation at the spot. The driver of the car had taken it from
the left side of the road and crossing the median, was driving
against the oncoming traffic. Therefore, there is 100%
negligence on the part of the driver of the car and though driver
of the goods vehicle was conscious and was driving the vehicle
properly, the accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the
car and hence the said respondent is not liable to pay
– 24 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
compensation. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim
petitions.
12. Based on the pleadings, four common issues were
framed in MVCs No.6894, 8548 and 6206 of 2010 and three
common issues were framed in MVCs No.6897, 6898 and 8547
of 2010. To prove the case of the petitioners, in all, nine
witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 9 and 47 documents were
marked as Exhibits P1 to P47. (Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked
separately in MVC No.6206 of 2010 before clubbing with other
petitions). On closure of petitioners’ side evidence, respondents
have examined three witnesses as RWs1 to 3 and marked four
documents as Exhibits R1 to R4.
13. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
Tribunal has allowed the petitions in part and awarded
compensation. The details of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal with interest in the claim petitions are as under:
Amount (after
deducting 25% out of
Sl.No. MVC Number Interest
total compensation
awarded)
1. 6894 of 2010 85,63,200.00 6%
2. 6897 of 2010 60,000.00 8%
3. 6898 of 2010 4,00,894.00 8%
4. 8547 of 2010 1,97,570.00 8%
– 25 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
5. 8548 of 2010 8,67,000.00 6%
6. 6206 of 2010 9,47,000.00 6%
14. The Tribunal has further held that the Driver of the
car has contributed to the accident and accordingly saddled the
contributory negligence on the driver of the goods vehicle as
well as on the driver of the car in the ratio of 75:25 respectively
and ordered that respondent No.1 is liable to pay 75% which
shall be indemnified by respondent No.2-Insurance company.
Being aggrieved by this Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal, both Insurance company and the claimants have
preferred appeals. Insurance Company has preferred the
appeals questioning the liability as also the quantum and the
petitioners have preferred appeals seeking enhancement and
also questioning 25% contributory negligence saddled on the
driver of the car.
15. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for
the parties. Sri O. Mahesh learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent Insurance company would submit that the
Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law
and material on record. He would submit that the finding of the
Tribunal on the issue of negligence as to entry of the car from
– 26 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
the prohibited direction is proper, but insofar as holding that the
driver of the goods vehicle has contributed to an extent of 75%
to the cause of alleged accident is not just and proper, having
made an observation in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Judgment
as to the position of both vehicles with reference to the
evidence of both the drivers, spot mahazar and sketch. He
submitted that the Tribunal, in the circumstance, having held
and also found that entry of the car was improper and so also
its direction on 4-Lane Highway and also considering respective
damages to the left side of both the vehicles was not justified in
holding that the driver of the car contributed to the cause of
accident in question to an extent of 25% and the driver of the
goods vehicle to an extent of 75%. The same is highly
prejudicial, erroneous and illegal. In the circumstance, the
Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the car was
negligent to an extent of 100% as the car entered the dedicated
lane from prohibited direction illegally and in contravention of
Road regulations and it was unbecoming of a prudent and
responsible driver of a vehicle plying in public place/road. The
learned Counsel would further submit that the size or weight of
the vehicle does not determine the degree of negligence of its
driver, other than reasonable care not taken by prudent and
– 27 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
responsible driver in a given situation. Further, he would
submit that the Tribunal has erred in granting huge
compensation in all the cases, which is not just proper and on
all these grounds, sought for allowing the appeals by setting
aside the impugned Judgment and award.
16. As against this, the learned Counsels appearing for
the claimants would submit that the Tribunal has committed
serious error in considering the police records, First Information
Report, spot sketch, panchanama, Motor Vehicle report, which
clearly indicate that the driver of the goods vehicle was at fault
and also criminal case was registered against him, and after
trial, he was prosecuted by the Criminal Court as per Exhibit
P44. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material
evidence on record in its proper perspective. He would further
submit that the Tribunal committed a serious error without
evaluating the evidence of PWs1 and 2, though they were the
eye-witnesses to the accident. Nothing has been elicited in the
cross-examination of PWs1 and 2 with regard to negligence on
the part of the driver of the car. Further, the Tribunal
committed an error in not considering the evidence of PW8-
Afsad Pasha who was present at the spot and witnessed the
– 28 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
spot panchanama and has also shifted the dead bodies to the
ambulance; he has clearly deposed that, due to the road repair
work, all the vehicles were moving in the lane leading towards
Kolar and also regarding the condition of the road at the time of
accident, and diversion of traffic. His evidence is corroborated
by Exhibits P46 and P47. It is submitted that the Tribunal
ought to have seen that the appellants had established that
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and
the driver of the goods vehicle was solely responsible for the
occurrence of the accident. It is further submitted that Exhibits
P46 and P47-letters issued by National Highway Authority of
India and M/s. LANCO Private Ltd., clearly indicate that from
the year 2009-2011, due to formation of 6-Lane National
Highway, one lane was blocked and all vehicles were
compulsorily given a direction to reach Kolar from the right side
road. The Tribunal brushed aside these authenticated
documents which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is
further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated
the spot-sketch, Motor Vehicle Inspection report and other
documents. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not
awarded just and proper compensation as to the general
damages and special damages, and on all these grounds,
– 29 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
sought for modifying the impugned Judgment and award
fastening the entire liability on the driver of goods vehicle, so
also sought for enhancement in the compensation.
17. Having heard the learned Counsels on both sides, and
on perusal of records, the following points would arise for our
consideration:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening
contributory negligence on the part of the driver
of the car and the goods vehicle in the ratio of
25:75 respectively?
2. Whether the claimants in Miscellaneous First
Appeals No.4444, 4447, 4445, 4456, 4443 and
5136 of 2016 are entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
Regarding Point No.1:
18. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the both the Counsels and also
examined the materials placed before us. A perusal of material
makes it clear that on the basis of complaint filed by Smt.
Ayesha Noorullah, Mulbagilu Police have registered the case
against the driver of EICHER Tanker (goods vehicle) for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of
– 30 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
Indian Penal Code and submitted First Information Report to the
Court. Thereafter, police went to the spot on the same day and
conducted spot panchanama in the presence of panchas and
also conducted inquest panchanama of Asif Javed, Nayemunnisa
and Naseemunnissa, obtained Motor Vehicle Inspection report,
postmortem report, wound certificates of the injured, recorded
statement of witnesses and after thorough investigation, the
Investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against Raghu-
driver of the goods vehicle for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian
Penal Code.
19. Along with the documentary evidence, petitioners
have adduced the evidence of Smt. Shariff Ayesha Noorullah,
PW2-Atif Javed and PW3-Javed Iqbal. Doctors who have
treated the injured have also been examined as PWs4 to 6 and
one Nehal Khadeer, HR Manager of Target Corporation of India
Pvt. Ltd., was examined as PW7 and Afsad Pasha was examined
as PW8.
20. The Insurance company has set up its defence that
the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the
driver of the car. To substantiate this, one Sandeep of Royal
– 31 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Company is examined as
RW1 and one Raj Kiran is examined as RW2 and the driver of
goods vehicle K Raghu, is examined as RW3. The Tribunal has
considered the evidence adduced by both the parties and
observed that as per the spot sketch, there is a space of six feet
from the spot to the median. The impact happened as the car
went straight towards the truck and both the vehicles colluded
head-on and have changed their direction, i.e. one towards the
right and other towards the left. Injuries suffered by the
inmates and death of victims disclose that the car driver has
taken the car to the left side of the truck due to which left
portion of both vehicles have struck head-on. As per motor
vehicle inspection report, the damages to both the vehicles
discloses that the front and left portion of the car as well as the
goods vehicle is extensively damaged. All these facts disclose
that the driver of the car ventured into right side of the road
and further tried to take the car towards extreme right and it is
evident that in this process the accident occurred. Considering
this fact, the Tribunal has held that there is contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car to an extent of
25% and accordingly fastened the negligence on both the
– 32 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
drivers of car and goods vehicle in the ratio of 25:75
respectively.
21. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant-claimants would vehemently submit that the Tribunal
has not considered that due to road repair work all the vehicles
were moving in the lane leading towards Kolar and the condition
of the road at the time of the accident, as also regarding the
diversion of traffic, which is corroborated by Exhibits P46 and
P47 which are the letters issued by National Highway Authority
of India and M/s. LANCO Pvt Ltd. with regard to road repair
work, but there is no reference as to the road repair work.
Petitioners have not disputed the spot sketch, which is marked
as Exhibit P2. The prosecution papers, including the other
papers, do not disclose as to the road repair work and blocking
of road as stated by the petitioners. Therefore, only on the
basis of Exhibits P46 and P47, it is not safe to come to the
conclusion that road was blocked, as contended by the
petitioners.
22. On re-examination, re-evaluation and reconsideration
of entire material placed before us, we do not find any error or
infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal that there is
– 33 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
contributory negligence to an extent of 25% on the part of
driver of the car. Though charge-sheet is filed only against the
driver of the goods vehicle, the Tribunal has independently
assessed the material evidence on record in accordance with
law and facts and fixed the contributory negligence to an extent
of 25% on the driver of the car and 75% on the driver of the
goods vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal is justified in giving the
said finding. However, this contributory negligence on the part
of the driver of the car would not affect the rights of the
claimants who are the inmates of the car. As regards the
principle of composite negligence, we rely on the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KHENYEI v. NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in
2015(9) SCC 279 wherein it is observed that the claimant is
entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort-feasors and to
recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort-feasors
is joint and several. The Insurance Company is at liberty to
institute proceedings against the other tort-feaser to recover
the 25% of the compensation amount. Point No.1 is answered
accordingly.
– 34 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
Regarding point No.2:
23. As regards compensation in MFA No.4444 of 2016
arising out of MVC No.6894 of 2010, PW1 has reiterated the
averments made in the claim petition and produced Exhibits P8
and P9 passports of the first and second petitioners, Exhibit P3-
inquest mahazar and Exhibit P4-postmortem report. It is
pleaded that the deceased was a Software Engineer and earning
Rs.1,01,000/- per month with allowances and due to the
untimely death of the victim, petitioners have lost the bread-
earner in the family. PW1 has produced Exhibit P41-
employment letter issued by Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.
and Exhibit P42-salary certificate and exhibit P43-salary slip for
the month of May 2010 and Exhibit P44-the account extract.
Petitioner has also examined PW7-Nehal Khadeer, Executive of
the Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd who has deposed as per
Exhibit P43-salary slip. In his cross-examination, he admits
that salary would be dispersed through account only and the
salary includes perks allowances which would vary every
month. The Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased
only at Rs.86,700/- per month, which is not correct. As per the
records, the deceased was a Software Engineer and was
– 35 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
earning Rs.1,01,000/- per month plus allowances. Petitioners
have also produced Exhibit P43-salary slip for the month of May
2010 issued by M/s. Target Corporation of India which reveals
that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.1,04,849/-. Out
of the gross salary, Rs.200/- and Rs.7840/- is to be deducted
towards profession tax and towards income tax respectively.
Then the monthly gross income would be Rs.96,809/-. As per
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% is to be added to the
income towards future prospects. If that is added the income
would be Rs.1,35,533/- per month. As there are three
dependents, one-third is to be deducted towards the personal
expenses of the deceased. The inquest and post-mortem report
reveals that the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of
accident. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the Case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6
SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier would be 16. Hence, the
loss of dependency would be. Rs.1,73,48,160/-. Further, as per
the decision of PRANAY SETHI (supra), petitioners are also
entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, and
– 36 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and towards funeral
expenses. Resultantly, petitioners are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.1,74,98,160/-.
24. As regards compensation in MFA No.4447 of 2016
pertaining to MVC No.6897 of 2010 is concerned, that petitioner
is a minor aged about three years. PW1 has reiterated the
averments made in the claim petition and also produced wound
certificate Exhibit P15, Discharge summary and also the medical
bills as per Exhibits P16 and P18, respectively. Petitioner has
suffered displacement of right clavicle fracture, which is
grievous in nature. The Tribunal has awarded a global
compensation of Rs.80,000./- The Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation towards food, nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges and also towards loss of amenities.
Considering the nature of injuries, we are of the view that it
would suffice, if the global compensation is enhanced to
Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
25. With regard to compensation in MFA No.4445 of 2016
arising out of MVC No.6898 of 2010 is concerned, it is the case
of the petitioners that he has suffered grievous injuries in the
accident, and he got himself examined as PW2 and produced
– 37 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
wound certificate Exhibit P19 and discharge summary Exhibit
P20 issued by Mallya and Fortis Hospitals. He has also
produced medical bills for Rs.3,84,525/-. The petitioner has
undergone surgery even for removal of implants. Petitioner has
also examined PW4-Dr. Sayeed Saleemuddin who has opined
about disability suffered by the petitioner. PW5-Dr.
Surendranath Shetty, has deposed that the injured has suffered
disability in an extent of 15% to the whole body. The material
on record discloses that the petitioner has suffered about six
injuries and among them two injuries or grievous in nature, i.e.
fracture to the ribs and left shaft humerus. During the course
of cross-examination, PW2 has deposed that he has been
employed as Software Engineer. The Tribunal has awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and also awarded a sum
of Rs.3,84,525/- towards medical expenses considering the
medical bills produced by the petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/-
towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has not awarded
compensation towards loss of earning during laid-up period and
any amount towards food, nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that it would suffice if global compensation
of Rs.30,000/- is awarded in addition to what has been awarded
– 38 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
by the Tribunal. Since the contributory negligence is fastened on
the driver of the car who is the petitioner herein, out of the
compensation amount, 25% is to be deducted. Then the global
compensation to which the petitioner is entitled in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, would be Rs.22,500/-.
26. In MFA 4446 of 2016 arising out MVC No.8547 of
2010, the petitioner has pleaded that she suffered fracture of
both bones of right arm, inferior ramus left side. Immediately,
after the accident, she was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital,
where she took treatment as an inpatient and further she took
treatment at Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru. Exhibit P10-wound
certificate reveals that she has suffered three injuries and
among that injuries 1 and 3 are grievous in nature. X-ray
reveals that right forearm communited fracture of both bones
middle one-third and inferior pubic rami fracture of left pelvis.
Exhibit P11 is the discharge summary and photographs, which
disclose that there is a scalp on her hand. The petitioner
examined PW6-Dr. P.V. Manohar, who has deposed about the
injuries suffered by the petitioner and about the implants in situ
and the Doctor has opined that the petitioner has suffered 12%
disability to the whole body. It is admitted that there is no
– 39 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
reference made from Mallya Hospital about the nature of
surgery. The Tribunal has opined that the petitioner is able to
work and she is not disabled due to the injuries sustained the
accident and also there is no loss of employment. Considering
the evidence placed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering.
Further, considering Exhibit P13-medical bills produced by the
petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.93,426/- and
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.20,000/- towards
future medical expenses. However, the Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards Food, nourishment, attendant
and conveyance charges. Considering the nature of injury
sustained, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is
entitled for a global compensation of Rs.25,000/- in addition to
what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
27. As regards compensation, in MFA No.4443 of 2016
arising out of MVC No.8548 of 2010, the petitioners filed claim
petition as to the death of Nayeemunissa. Petitioner No.1 is the
husband of the deceased and petitioners 2 and 3 are the
children of the deceased. Petitioner No.1-Javed Iqbal, got
examined himself as PW3 and produced documents Inquest-
– 40 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
Exhibit P24, and post-mortem report Exhibit P26. The deceased
was a housewife. The Tribunal has assessed the notional
income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is just
and proper. But the Tribunal has not added future prospects to
the income. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.
PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157,
25% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. If
that is added, the monthly income would be Rs.7,500/- and out
of that one-third is to be deducted towards the personal
expenses of the deceased. Then, the income would be
Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has considered the age of
the deceased as 50 years on the basis of post-mortem report
Exhibit P25 and adopted appropriate multiplier 13. Accordingly,
the loss of dependency would be Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x
12 x 13). As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/-
each towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses.
Accordingly, the revised compensation would be Rs.9,30,000/-.
– 41 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
28. With respect to compensation pertaining to MFA
No.5136 of 2016 arising out of MVC No.6206 of 2010, the
petitioners have filed claim petition for the death of
Naseemunissa. The son of the deceased-Zahid Ali Khan is
examined as PW9. He has reiterated as to the averments made
in the claim petition and produced Exhibit P4-inquest mahazar
and Exhibit P5-post-mortem report. It is submitted that the
deceased was a Tailor by profession and was earning Rs.8000-
9000 per month. In this regard, the petitioners have not placed
any supporting material or documentary evidence. The Tribunal
has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per
month, relying on the decision of RAMACHANDRAPPA v. ROYAL
SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd. reported in
AIR 2011 SC 2951. But the Tribunal has not added future
prospects. As the deceased was 48 years, as per the decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in
AIR 2017 SC 5157, 25% is to be added to the income towards
future prospects. If that is added, the monthly income of the
deceased would be Rs.7,500/- and as there are five
dependents, one-fourth is to be deducted towards the personal
expenses of the deceased. Then, the income would be
– 42 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
Rs.5,625/- per month. The Tribunal has considered the age of
the deceased as 48 years on the basis of post-mortem report
Exhibit P25 and adopted appropriate multiplier 13. Accordingly,
the loss of dependency would be Rs.8,77,500/- (Rs.5,625/- x
12 x 13). As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards loss of consortium;
and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and towards
funeral expenses. Accordingly, the revised compensation would
be Rs.11,07,500/-.
29. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Miscellaneous First Appeals No.2994, 2995,
2996, 2997, 2998 and 2999 of 2016 preferred by
the Insurance Company, are dismissed;
ii) Miscellaneous First Appeals No. 4444, 4447,
4445, 4446, 4443 and 5136 of 2016 preferred by
the appellants are allowed in part, modifying that
the appellant-claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation as under:
– 43 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016 MFA No. 2995 of 2016 and 9 others Total Sl.No. MFA Number Compensation (Rs.) 1. 4444 of 2016 1,74,98,160.00 2. 4447 of 2016 1,00,000.00 3. 4445 of 2016 4,23,394.00 4. 4446 of 2016 2,88,426.00 5. 4443 of 2016 9,30,000.00 6. 5136 of 2016 11,07,500.00
iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
claim petition, till deposit;
iv) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment;
v) Apportionment and disbursement, shall be
mutatis-mutandis the award of the Tribunal;
vi) Respondent Insurance Company is at liberty to
institute proceedings on the other tort-feaser,
i.e. driver/owner/insurer of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03/MD-1223, to recover 25%
of the compensation amount;
– 44 –
MFA No. 4444 of 2016
c/w MFA No. 2994 of 2016
MFA No. 2995 of 2016
and 9 others
vii) Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal forthwith for onward disbursal of
compensation to the claimants;
viii) Draw award accordingly;
ix) Registry to send the trial Court records along
with the copy of this judgment to the concerned
Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
[ad_1]
Source link