SRI M JAGADEESH v. SMT HARINI

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND:

#1. SRI DIVAKAR ACHAR G S/O BHUJANGA ACHAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

#2. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA G W/O DIVAKAR CHAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3-74, SRI. GURUKRIPA, KATEEL ROAD, NEAR ST. JOSEPH COLLEGE, BAJPE, MANGALORE, D.K.

#3. SRI. MANJUNATH E S/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 61, CHANNANAYAKANAPALYA NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE (OWNER OF THE CAR NO. KA-04-AB-5213) (BY SRI. H.J. ANANDA, ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2.) ...RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 330/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 38,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION. DAKSHINA KANNADA, HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER IN MFA NO. 1167/2025 BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD MANGALORE BRANCH OFFICE, RAMABHAVANA COMPLEX, KODIABAIL, D.K., THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS, KRISHIBHVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND:

#1. M JAGADEESH S/O M.DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

#2. SMT HARINI, W/O M.JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

#3. MISS VIBHA, D/O M.JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT D.NO.24-01-16/13, LAXMI NILAYA HOUSE, K.E.B.LAYOUT, PRAGHATHI NAGAR, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE-575 001.

#4. SRI MANJUNATH.E, S/O ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.61, HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER CHANNANAYAKANAPALYA, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE. (OWNER OF THE CAR NO.KA-04-AB-5213) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDA H.J., ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 331/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,38,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) These appeals arise out of the Judgment and award dated 24th January 2022 passed in MVCs No.330 of 2019 and 331 of 2019 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mangaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal").

#2. Miscellaneous First Appeals No.3835 of 2022 and 3801 of 2022 are preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation. Miscellaneous First Appeals HC-KAR - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER No.4724 of 2022 and 1167 of 2025 are preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the impugned Judgment and award on the ground of liability.

#3. The substance of the claim petition in MVC No.330 of 2019 filed by the claimants is that, on 1st January 2019 at about 1:30 am, near SM Circle, Tumkur-Bangalore Main Road, the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19/EJ-7375 from Dasarahalli towards Peenya side along with a pillion rider. At that time, the driver of the offending car bearing registration No.KA-04/AB-5213, driving the same in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, owing to the impact of which, Sharan G.D. rider of motorcycle sustained head injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Premiere Sanjeevini Hospital, Bengaluru and then to Sparsh Hospital, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, where during the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 03rd January 2019. It is stated in the claim petition that the claimants spent Rs.8,00,000/- towards treatment, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Petitioners *Pg Nos.7 to 10 are re-typed and replaced vide Court Order dated 25.10.2025. HC-KAR - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 1 and 2 are parents of deceased and were depending upon the income of the deceased. It is further stated that the deceased was working as an Engineer at Toyota Industries Engine India Pvt. Ltd and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. He was the sole bread-earner in the family and due to unfortunate death, the family, apart from suffering mental agony, is also facing severe financial crisis.

#4. The case of the appellants in MFA No.3835 of 2022 is that, in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01st January, 2019, Vijeth J.M. was travelling as pillion rider on motorcycle ridden by Sharan G.D. which was hit by the offending car bearing registration No.KA-04/AB-5213, due to the impact of which, both the rider and the pillion rider fell from the motorcycle. The pillion rider sustained severe head injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Premiere Sanjeevini Hospital, Bangalore and later to Sparsh Hospital, Yeshwanthpur Bangalore, where while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injures on 03rd January

#2019. It is stated that he was aged 23 years as on the date of accident and was working as Saloon Manager at Hair Speak HC-KAR - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER Family Salon and Spa at Bangalore and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. The appellants, being parents and unmarried sister, were entirely dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. Due to the unfortunate death of the earning member in the family, petitioners have suffered mental agony and also put to untold financial hardship. It is also stated in the claim petitions that Peenya Traffic Police have registered case in Crime No.1 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending car. Respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of defending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, petitioners preferred Claim Petitions No.330 of 2019 and 331 of 2019, seeking compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.38,50,000/- and Rs.19,38,000/- in the claim petitions respectively with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants have preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement in compensation. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR

#5. Appellant-United India insurance Company Limited has preferred MFA No.4724 of 2022 on the ground that the compensation awarded by that Tribunal is on the higher side and it is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by adding 50% of future prospects as against 40% and accordingly, sought for modification of compensation by allowing the appeal. MFA No.1167 of 2025 is preferred on the ground that the alleged accident is a self-fall as per medical records issued by Premiere Sanjeevani Hospital and Sparsh Hospital, but, the respondents before the Tribunal had obtained compensation, which is contrary to law and accordingly, sought for setting aside of the award passed in MVC No.331 of 2019. Along with the appeal, the learned counsel has filed application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 998 days in filing the appeal and also filed Applications IA No.II of 2022 filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC in MFA No.4724 of 2022 seeking stay of judgment and award in MVC No.330/2019 and IA No.II of 2025 filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC in MFA No.1167 of 2025 seeking stay of judgment and award passed in MVC No.331/2019. In the affidavits filed in support of Applications, it is stated that the appellant has already satisfied the compensation. To the said applications, respondent- claimants have filed written objections. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR

#6. Having heard both sides and on perusal of records, the following points would arise for our consideration:

#1. Whether the appellant-Insurance company has made a ground to exonerate it from liability to pay compensation?

#2. Whether the appellant-Insurance company has made out ground to allow IA.I of 2025 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in MFA No.1167 of 2025?

#3. Whether the appellant-Insurance company has made out a ground to allow the application, IA.II of 2023 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure?

#4. Whether the claimants in MFAs No.3835 of 2022 and 3801 of 2022 are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Regarding Points 1 to 3:

#7. Having perused, the oral and documentary evidence placed by both the parties, it is clear that on the basis of complaint filed by the Traffic Police Constable Sri Raghu, Peenya Traffic Police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2019 against the accused Moodalappa, driver of car bearing - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR registration No.KA-04/AB-5213 and submitted First Information Report to the Court for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code. On the same day, police rushed to the spot and conducted spot panchanama, prepared rough sketch, conducted inquest panchanama of the deceased, obtained motor vehicle report and also issued notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act to the owner of the vehicle, obtained post-mortem report of both deceased, recorded statement of witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of offending car for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. Additionally, complainant Raghu PC-15330, who is examined as PW3, has deposed in his evidence as to the contents of the complaint. Petitioners have also adduced the evidence of PW1- Shakuntala in MVC No.330 of 2019 and another witness Jagadish in MVC No.331 of 2019.

#8. Respondent-Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal to discard the evidence placed by the petitioners. Even in the written objections filed by the Insurance Company in both the cases, it has not disputed the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR accident and has taken the contention that the driver of the offending car was not holding effective driving license as on the date of accident. Insurance company has also not disputed as to the involvement of the offending car in the accident.

#9. Learned Counsel Sri Janardhana Reddy, appearing for the insurance Company would submit that one Diwakar and Shakunthala from Bajpe and Advocate Guddegowda from Hassan and D Padmanabha Kumar, Advocate have informed the Insurance Company that the accident is a self-fall and at the time of alleged accident, deceased-Sharan G.D., who was riding the motorcycle along with pillion rider, fell from bike and succumbed to accidental injuries. On the basis of the information received, they have secured Medico Legal Case Register from Premiere Sanjeevini Hospital, in which it is mentioned as "history of self-fall from bike on 1st January 2019" and copy of the MLC Register extract issued by Premiere Sanjeevani Hospital and Sparsh Hospital are produced.

#10. On the contrary, Sri H.J. Ananda, learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants, would submit that the accident took place on 01st January 2019 at 1:30 pm, and within 45 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR minutes of occurrence of the accident, Traffic Police Sri Raghu has lodged complaint to Peenya Traffic Police against the driver of the offending car bearing registration No.KA-04/AB-5213 and case was registered and after thorough investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge against Moodalappa, driver of the offending car for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. He submits that absolutely there is no material to discard the evidence placed by the petitioners and hence sought to reject the Applications filed by the Insurance Company.

#11. A perusal of material placed before us makes it clear that the accident took place on 01st January 2019 at 1:30 pm. Immediately, within 45 minutes from the time of occurrence of accident, Raghu, Traffic Police filed complaint with Peenya Traffic Police. As the offences are cognizable in nature, so also, on the basis of the complaint, the Sub- Inspector of Peenya Traffic Police Station registered Case in Crime No.1 of 2019 for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending car and submitted First Information Report to the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR court. The petitioners have not suppressed anything as to the admission of the deceased to Premiere Sanjeevani Hospital. Exhibit P1 itself reveals that immediately after the accident, both the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle were shifted to Premier Sanjeevani Hospital. The same is also pleaded in claim petitions. It is also pleaded as to the shifting of injured to the Sparsh Hospital. A perusal of Medico Legal Case register issued by Premier Sanjeevani Hospital reveals that patient Sharan G.D., aged 23 years, was brought by his cousin brother with history of self-fall from bike on 01st January 2019 at Jalahalli Cross. The name of other injured/deceased is not shown in the MLC Register. The name of person who has given history of accident is also not disclosed.

#12. In MLC extract issued by Sparsh Hospital, it is stated that injured Sharan G.D., was brought to hospital by one Sukumar M.H. with the history of road traffic accident while proceeding on two wheeler. The injured was incubated at hospital and referred for neurosurgical intervention. The appellant-Insurance Company has not disclosed anything as to who has shifted injured to Premiere Sanjeevani Hospital, who - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR has furnished the information that accident occurred due to self-fall from bike. Therefore, the MLC Register extract issued by the Sparsh Hospital will be of no help to the Insurance company to prove the fact that the accident occurred due to self-fall from the bike. On this basis, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that Sukumar who shifted the injured to Sparsh Hospital has furnished the information as to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and he does not know the cause of accident. The documentary evidence placed by the claimants before the Tribunal reveals that the Traffic Police who was on duty, who is not a person interested in this case, has promptly and honestly filed complaint with the concerned traffic police within 45 minutes from the time of occurrence of accident narrating the fact that the motorcycle was hit by the offending car. Even at this stage, the Insurance company has not produced any material to show that the petitioners have filed false claim petition against Insurance company. The letter addressed by Advocate Guddegowda from Hassan and of D. Padmanabha Kumar, are also not placed before this Court to come to conclusion that the offending car is not involved in the accident. On the contrary, the Advocate Guddegowda has - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of claimants in both the cases and has filed the claim petitions. Advocate D. Padmanabha Kumar has not appeared on behalf of claimants and that too after the disposal of claim petitions, why these advocates have informed the Insurance company that the accident is a self-fall, has not been explained by the Insurance company. Since there is no believable legal material placed before the Court to come to the conclusion that Guddegowda, Advocate and D. Padmanabha Kumar have informed the Insurance Company that the alleged accident is a self-fall, the contention taken by the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.

#13. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence placed by the claimants before the Tribunal, so also, on careful scrutiny of the contents in the affidavit filed by the Insurance Company in support of Application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, we do not find any error, illegality or legal infirmity in the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal as to the liability of the Insurance Company. In that view of the matter, we reject the arguments advanced on behalf of the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR Insurance company. For the aforementioned reasons and discussions, Applications filed seeking condonation of delay and to stay the impugned Judgment and award, are not required to adjudicate the matter in dispute. Accordingly, the Insurance Company has failed to place sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal in MFA No.1167 of 2025. Accordingly, we answer Points 1 to 3 in the negative. Regarding Point 4:

#14. With regard to quantum of compensation, in MFA No.3801 of 2022 arising out of MVC No.330 of 2019, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of accident and was working as an Engineer in Toyota Industries Engine India Private Limited and was getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. The appellants have produced salary certificate as per Exhibit P15. One Mr. Sudarshan, who is a Senior officer in the Company is examined as PW2. He has deposed that the deceased was paid a salary of Rs.21,200/- per month as on December 2018. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was having a bright future in his career as an Engineer. Therefore, - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency needs a re-look. Salary certificate-Exhibit P15 reveals that the total earning of the deceased was Rs.21,200/- per month, to which, annual benefits of Rs.4,800/- paid towards LTA is to be added. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,59,200/- (Rs.21,200/- x 12 + Rs.4,800/-). 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, and if it is added the annual income comes to Rs.3,62,880/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, out of the total income 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then the annual income comes to Rs.1,81,440/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex 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, commensurate to the age of the deceased, would be 18. Hence, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.32,65,920/- (Rs.1,81,440/- x 18). *Pg Nos.19 to 23 are re-typed and replaced vide Court Order dated 25.10.2025. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR

#15. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation towards conventional heads. As per the reason of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, the petitioners are entitled for loss of consortium, loss of estate and towards obsequies and funeral rites. Accordingly, revised compensation would be as follows: Sl.No. 1. 2. 3.

#4. 5. Head Towards loss of dependency Towards medical expenses Towards (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Towards loss of estate Towards obsequies and funeral rites consortium Amount (Rs.) 32,65,920.00 3,93,541.00 80,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 Total 37,69,461.00

#16. With regard to compensation in MFA No.3835 of 2022 arising out of MVC No.331 of 2019 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was aged 23 years and was working as Saloon Manager at Hair Speak Family Salon and Spa at Bangalore and was earning an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month. The appellants have produced the Agreement Letter and Appointment Offer of S & S Salons Organisation, Bangalore - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR which is marked at Exhibits P13 and P14. Exhibit P14 states that the deceased was permanently appointed to work as Salon Manager. But the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.14,000/- per month. Perusal of Exhibit P14 makes it clear that the salary is shown as Rs.1,68,000/- per annum, including allowances. The Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has not added future prospects. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), 40% is to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the income of the deceased would be Rs.21,000/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARALA VARMA (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be 18. Hence, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.21,16,800/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, the claimants are also entitled for loss of estate, obsequies and - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR funeral rites. Accordingly, the revised compensation to which the appellants are entitled is as under: Sl.No. 1. 2. 3.

#4. 5. Head Towards loss of dependency Towards medical expenses Towards (Rs.40,000/- x 3) Towards loss of estate Towards obsequies and funeral rites consortium Amount (Rs.) 21,16,800.00 3,96,196.00 1,20,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 Total 26,62,996.00 Hence, we answer Point No.4, partly in the affirmative.

#17. In the result, we proceed to pass the following ORDER i) MFAs No.3835 of 2022 and 3801 of 2022 preferred by appellant-claimants are allowed in part holding that the appellants are entitled for compensation as follows: a) In MFA No. 3801/2022, the claimants for are entitled compensation of Rs.37,69,461/- against Rs.38,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; b) In MFA No.3835/2022 appellants are entitled compensation - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR Rs.26,62,996/- against Rs.19,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ii) Compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation; iii) Insurance company shall deposit the amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment; iv) MFAs No.4724 of 2022 and 1167 of 2025 preferred by appellant-Insurance company are dismissed; v) IA.I of 2025 filed in MFA No.1167 of 2025 seeking to condone the delay of 998 days in filing the appeal is dismissed; vi) IA.II of 2023 filed in MFA No.4724 of 2022 under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure stands dismissed. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR Consequently, all pending IAs stand disposed of; vii) Amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith; viii) Apportionment and disbursement of compensation amount shall be as per the orders of the Tribunal; ix) Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI M JAGADEESH AND OTHERS VS. SRI MANJUNATH E AND ANOTHER]

25.10.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO' (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA) These appeals were disposed of by the judgment dated 26th June, 2025. After obtaining the scanned copy of the judgment, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has filed Memo "for being spoken to" dated 04th August, 2025 in MFA No. 3835/2022, stating that by oversight 50% is added towards future prospects as against adding 40%. Further, the claimants/appellants in MFA No. 3835/2022 and MFA No. 3801/2022 have filed IA No. I of 2025 and IA No. II of 2025, respectively, seeking addition of medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Both the learned Counsels have no objection to pass order on the memo "for being spoken to" and the respective Interlocutory Applications. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR IN MFA NOs.3835/2022 and 1167/2025 [arising out of MVC No.331/2019]: There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, where the deceased is self-employed or on a fixed Salary, 40% is to be added towards future prospects, but by oversight 50% is added instead of 40%. Hence, the same needs to be rectified. In this case, annual income of the deceased would be Rs.1,68,000/- to which if 40% is added towards future prospects, the same comes to Rs.2,35,200/-, out of which, if 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income would be Rs.1,17,600/-. Hence, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.21,16,800/- (Rs.1,17,600/- x 18). The same is awarded lieu of Rs.22,68,000/- as mentioned in this Court's judgment dated

26.06.2025, towards loss of dependency. Considering the medical bills produced by the petitioners in the claim petition, the Trial Court has awarded an amount of - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR Rs.3,96,196/- towards medical expenses. This Court while awarding the amount of compensation, by oversight has omitted the same. Hence, the total compensation to which the appellants are entitled to is as under: Sl.No. 1. 2. 3.

#4. 5. Head Towards loss of dependency Towards medical expenses Towards (Rs.40,000/- x 3) Towards loss of estate Towards obsequies and funeral rites consortium Amount (Rs.) 21,16,800.00 3,96,196.00 1,20,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 Total 26,62,996.00 IN MFA NO.3801/2022 AND 4724/2022 [ARISING OUT OF MVC NO.330/2019: The question of quantum of compensation is examined as part of Point No.4 in this Court's judgment dated 26.06.2025. In MFA No.3835/2022 and MFA No.1167/2025, the addition of 40% towards future prospects is considered in view of Pranay Sethi's case [supra]. However in these appeals, this Court, by oversight has added 50% instead of 40% towards future prospects. Hence, the same needs to be rectified. In this case, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,59,200/- to which if 40% is added towards future prospects, the same comes to Rs.3,62,880/-, out of which, if 50% is to be - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then the annual income would be Rs.1,81,440/-. Hence, compensation towards of dependency would be Rs.32,65,920/- (Rs.1,81,440/- x 18). The same is awarded in lieu of Rs.34,99,200/- as mentioned in this Court's judgment dated 26.06.2025, towards loss of dependency. Additionally, the trial Court has awarded Rs.3,93,541/- towards medical expenses. This Court while awarding the amount of compensation, by oversight has omitted the same. Accordingly, the total compensation would be as follows: Sl.No. 1. 2. 3.

#4. 5. Head Towards loss of dependency Towards medical expenses Towards (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Towards loss of estate Towards obsequies and funeral rites consortium Amount (Rs.) 32,65,920.00 3,93,541.00 80,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 Total 37,69,461.00 Certain typographical errors corrected suo motu: [a] This Court in the judgment dated 26.06.2025 in paragraph -3 has recorded the facts of the claim petition in MVC No.330/2019 but has inadvertently mentioned the claim petition in 'MVC No. 331/2019'. The reference to the claim petition must be corrected as 'MVC No.330/2019'. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR [b] In paragraph 4 of the judgment there is reference to the concerned appeals and the corresponding claim petitions but there is an error in mentioning the corresponding numbers and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respective claimants. As such this paragraph must be corrected to refer to the corresponding appeals, claim petitions and the compensation as follows: Miscellaneous First Numbers Appeal Claim Petitions [MVC Numbers] Compensation awarded Tribunal [Rs.] Rs. 19,38,000/- Rs. 38,50,000/- [c] In paragraph 5 of the judgment there is reference to IA No.II of 2023 filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in MFA No.4724 of 2022 seeking stay of judgment and award passed in MVCs No.330 of 2019 and 331/2019, but there is an error and this must be read as "IA No.II of 2022 filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC in MFA No.4724 of 2022 seeking stay of judgment and award in - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:22562-DB MFA No. 3835 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 3801 of 2022 MFA No. 4724 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR MVC No.330/2019 and IA No.II of 2025 filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC in MFA No.1167 of 2025 seeking stay of judgment and award passed in MVC No.331/2019." [d] In the operative portion of the judgment dated 26.06.2025 at point No.(vi) there is an obvious error in mentioning IA II of 2023 filed in MFA No.4724 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure and this must be read as "IA II of 2023 filed in MFA No.4724 of 2022 under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure". The changes as aforesaid must be made. As such, the Registry is directed to make corresponding changes in the judgment dated 26.06.2025, replace the corrected pages and issue fresh certified copies after due re-scanning. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2