Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd (represented by Advocate D. Vijaya Kumar). Respondents – Siddamma (mother and natural guardian) and her minor children Dhavanharsa, Sujatha, Chidananda, as well as senior relatives Mallayya and Nagamma, residing at No.1/86, Near Mallayya Temple, Belgere Village, Yadgiri Taluk, Yadgiri District. Ex‑parte respondent – Sumuka Enterprises.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Miscellaneous First Appeal (MFA) No. 5683 of 2025 filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 09‑06‑2025 passed by the III Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH‑18).
  • Background: The respondents filed a claim petition for compensation arising from the death of Mallappa in a road traffic accident on 05‑06‑2024. The accident was alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of a goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA‑41‑D‑3579.
  • Tribunal Findings: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MVC) held the accident to be solely due to the negligence of the insured vehicle’s driver and awarded compensation as follows:

| Compensation Head | Amount (Rs.) |

| Loss of Dependency | 27,84,375 |

| Loss of Consortium | 2,64,000 |

| Loss of Estate | 16,500 |

| Funeral & Obsequies Expenses | 16,500 |

| Total | 30,81,375 |

The Tribunal also ordered interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition until realization.

  • Appellant’s Contentions: Counsel for Reliance Insurance argued that the deceased was a motor‑cycle rider who entered the road from the right side and collided head‑on, implying contributory negligence. The counsel also contended that the deceased’s age should be taken as 41 years (multiplier 14) based on the Aadhar record showing 40 years 06 months 05 days.
  • Respondents’ Contentions: Counsel for the respondents asserted that a charge sheet had been filed against the driver of the insured vehicle, establishing sole negligence of the driver. They maintained that the Tribunal correctly used the Aadhar‑recorded date of birth (01‑01‑1984), giving the deceased an age of 40 years 05 months, and applied the appropriate multiplier of 15.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The High Court noted that the charge sheet against the driver substantiated the driver’s negligence and that the appellant offered no evidence to the contrary. The Court accepted the Aadhar‑derived date of birth, confirming the deceased’s age as 40 years, and therefore applied multiplier 15, consistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Samsun Bee & Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2026 ACJ 532) that the completed age must be considered for multiplier determination.
  • Legal Precedent Cited: The Court referred to the Apex Court’s analysis of multiplier application in Samsun Bee and the Sarla Verma framework, emphasizing that a higher multiplier applies only after the deceased has completed the next age bracket.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The amount deposited by the insurer is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Insurance Liability