Karnataka High Court
Smt. Maremma And Ors vs Sri. Kanakarasu P And Ors on 3 December, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201276 OF 2019 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201275 OF 2019
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201305 OF 2019
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201306 OF 2019
IN M.F.A.NO.201276/2019
BETWEEN:
SHARIF SAB
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
S/O RAJA SAB,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
AGE: 22 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O: HEGGADADINNI VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVADURGA.
NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: RAICHUR - 584 102
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KANAKARASU P.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
S/O PERUMAL,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524,
R/O: 274, THIPATT V. RAJAGOLAHALLI,
POST: PENNAGARAM,
TQ: DHARMAPURI DIST:636 803 (TN)
2. SELVAM K.P.
S/O PALANSAMY K.C.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524, OLD NO.3/49,
NEW NO.3/274, GUNDALAPATTY VILLAGE,
OLD DHARMAPURI POST,
DHARMAPURI DIST: 636 803 (TN)
3. THE MANAGER,
SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.102 & 103 COUNTER PERMIT BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO SAJANAYVANI (HUBLI)
KARNATAKA - 580 020.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O SANNA HUCHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
BEARING NO.KA-36/A-7800,
R/O: ERA VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST; RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 06.07.2023 NOTICE TO R1, R2;
V/O DATED 25.11.2025, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR IN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
M.V.C.NO.27/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201275/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAREMMA
W/O POOJA @ BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SRI SRIDHAR
S/O POOJA @ BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. RANJITHA
D/O POOJA @ BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 08 YEARS,
4. POOJAMMA
D/O POOJA @ BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 05 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS UNDER THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
MAREMMA APPELLANT NO.1.
5. SRI BUDEPPA
S/O MAREPPA,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
6. SMT. YELLAMMA
W/O BUDEPPA,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O HEERA VILLAGE,
TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAIHCUR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KANAKARASU P.
S/O PERUMAL,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524,
R/O: 274, THIPATT V. RAJAGOLAHALLI,
POST: PENNAGARAM,
TQ: DHARMAPURI DIST:636 803 (TN)
2. SELVAM K.P.
S/O PALANSAMY K.C.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524, OLD NO.3/49,
NEW NO.3/274, GUNDALAPATTY VILLAGE,
OLD DHARMAPURI POST,
DHARMAPURI DIST: 636 701 (TN)
3. THE MANAGER,
SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.102 & 103 COUNTER PERMIT BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO SAJANAYVANI (HUBLI)
KARNATAKA - 580 020.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O SANNA HUCHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
BEARING NO.KA-36/A-7800,
R/O: ERA VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST; RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 06.07.2023 NOTICE TO R1, R2;
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR IN
M.V.C.NO.358/2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201305/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. EARAMMA
W/O BASAVARAJ
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SABAMMA
D/O BASAVARAJ
AGE: 8 YEARS, MINOR
3. BASAMMA
D/O BASAVARAJ
AGE: 5 YEARS, MINOR,
4. SRI KADAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOATHER,
APPELLANT NO.1 EARAMMA,
ALL ARE R/O DONDAMBALLI,
TQ: DEVADURGA,
NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANTS
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KANAKARASU P.
S/O PERUMAL,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524,
R/O: 274, THIPATT V. RAJAGOLAHALLI,
POST: PENNAGARAM,
TQ: DHARMAPURI DIST:636 803 (TN)
2. SELVAM K.P.
S/O PALANSAMY K.C.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524, OLD NO.3/49,
NEW NO.3/274, GUNDALAPATTY VILLAGE,
OLD DHARMAPURI POST,
DHARMAPURI DIST: 636 701 (TN)
3. THE MANAGER,
SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.102 & 103 COUNTER PERMIT BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO SAJANAYVANI (HUBLI)
KARNATAKA - 580 020.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O SANNA HUCHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
BEARING NO.KA-36/A-7800,
R/O: ERA VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST; RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 27.11.2023 NOTICE TO R1 and R2 DISPENSED
WITH)
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.399/2015 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.10,13,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO
RS.58,25,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST AND ETC.
IN M.F.A.NO.201306/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ERAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHA
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE WORK,
2. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHA
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WORD WORK,
3. SRI SANNABASAVA
S/O EARAPPA,
AGE: 7 YEARS, MINOR,
4. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O EARAPPA,
AGE: 5 YEARS, MINOR,
APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL FATHER
GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1 EARAPPA,
ALL R/O: AKALAKUMPI,
TQ: DEVADURGA NOW
R/O: SHAKTINAGAR, RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
AND:
1. SRI. KANAKARASU P.
S/O PERUMAL,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524,
R/O: 274, THIPATT V. RAJAGOLAHALLI,
POST: PENNAGARAM,
TQ: DHARMAPURI DIST:636 803 (TN)
2. SELVAM K.P.
S/O PALANSAMY K.C.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524, OLD NO.3/49,
NEW NO.3/274, GUNDALAPATTY VILLAGE,
OLD DHARMAPURI POST,
DHARMAPURI DIST: 636 701 (TN)
3. THE MANAGER,
SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.102 & 103 COUNTER PERMIT BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO SAJANAYVANI (HUBLI)
KARNATAKA - 580 020.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O SANNA HUCHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
BEARING NO.KA-36/A-7800,
R/O: ERA VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST; RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 24.11.2023 NOTICE TO R1 and R2 DISPENSED
WITH)
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.400/2015 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.10,42,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO
RS.55,25,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST AND ETC.
THESE MFA'S, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
1. These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) have been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19.02.2019 passed by the MACT, Raichur in MVC Nos.27/2016, 358/2015, 399/2015 and 400/2015 respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that when the claimant-Sharif, deceased Basavaraj, deceased Anjinamma, deceased Pooja @
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER Bheemanna and others were proceeding in Tempo Trax vehicle bearing registration No.KA-36-A-7800 (for short 'tempo') towards Bengaluru for attending coolie work and on 04.01.2015 at 3:00 am, the said vehicle was punctured near Kalambella, Chikkanahalli Village on Sira-Tumakur NH-48 road and while removing the left tyre back wheel, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-29-BA- 9524 (for short 'lorry'), which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the hind portion of the tempo. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased Pooja @ Bheemanna died at the spot, deceased Anjinamma, deceased Basavaraj succumbed to the injuries and claimant-Sharif and other inmates sustained injuries.
3. The claimants filed petitions under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent Nos.1 and 4, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petitions and held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the drivers of the lorry as well as the tempo at the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively and awarded compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the insurer of both the vehicles to deposit their respective share of compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by the claimants.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:
NEGLIGENCE:
The accident has occurred due to the negligence of driver of the lorry. The driver of the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the parked tempo. Further, he contented that the tempo was punctured in the highway. The driver of the tempo after taking all precautionary measures to put indicator and blinkers on the road, was changing the punctured tyre of the vehicle. The road was a straight road. The driver of the lorry could see the parking of the tempo from a long distance. Since driver of the lorry was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, he has not made any efforts to stop the lorry, dashed to the hind portion of the tempo. Due to the impact, the accident has occurred. He further contented that the tempo was insured and was having a valid insurance policy. The Tribunal is not justified in holding that the driver of the tempo has contributed to the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER accident to an extent of 25%. The said finding of the Tribunal is unsustainable.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
IN MVC 27/2016
a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working in a construction company. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.6,000/- per month.
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-5. There is 3 cm shortening of leg. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 20%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered 33.2% disability to whole body.
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 44 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
IN MVC 358/2015
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was self- employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' is warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The said principle shall be applied to the present case.
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra),
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side. IN MVC 399/2015
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was self-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' is warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The said principle shall be applied to the present case.
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN MVC 400/2015
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was
aged about 18 years at the time of the accident and the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was self- employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' is warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The said principle shall be applied to the present case.
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel for the claimants sought for allowing the appeals.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter- contentions:
NEGLIGENCE:
The driver of the tempo had parked the vehicle on the middle road of the road and removing the punctured wheel. He was supposed to park on the side of the road.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER Since it is a National Highway, the vehicles will be moving at a high speed; inspite of his best effort, the driver of the lorry was unable to control the vehicle and dashed to the hind portion of the tempo. He further contended that driver of the tempo was negligent in parking the tempo in the middle of the road and changing the wheel without even asking inmates to get down from the vehicle. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly held that driver of the tempo has also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
IN MVC 27/2016
a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries
sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 20%.
c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.
IN MVC 358/2015
a) In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Claimants are 6 in numbers. The Tribunal instead of deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses has erred in deducting 1/5th.
c) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
d) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
IN MVC 399/2015
a) In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
IN MVC 400/2015
a) In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeals.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. RE: NEGLIGENCE:
9. It is the case of the claimants that on 04.01.2015 at about 03.00 a.m., the claimant-injured, deceased persons and other villagers were inmates in the tempo bearing No.KA-36-A-7800 and proceeding to Bengaluru to attend coolie work and due to puncture, the vehicle was parked near Chikkanahalli on Sira-Tumkur NH-48 for changing the tyre. At that time, driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-29-BA-9524 was driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the tempo from
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER back side. Due to which some of the inmates have died and some of them have been injured. The driver of the tempo, who was changing the wheel died at the spot.
To prove the case, the claimants have examined 8 witnesses and marked 259 documents. Immediately, after the accident, complainant has been lodged against the driver of the lorry. The police after thorough investigation have filed charge sheet; in respect of driver of tempo, the charge sheet is filed only under the offences under Section 283 of IPC and in respect of driver of the lorry, the charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 304A, 338, 337, 283 and 279 of IPC.
PW1 to PW8 have categorically stated that accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the lorry. The tempo was parked on the side of the highway to change the punctured tyre. The driver of the tempo had taken all precaution to put the indicator and the blinkers and he has taken all possible care while parking the tempo. Therefore, there is no justification for the respondent to contend that
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without taking any safety measures. Since the accident occurred in the highway and it was straight road, the driver of the lorry could have noticed the parking of the tempo since there was indicators and blinkers. As per the panchanama, it goes to show that, lorry has hit the tempo from the back side and dragged the vehicle where the dead bodies and blood stains were located. It is very clear from spot panchanama and IMV report that driver of the lorry was driving the same in rash and negligent manner and with a high speed without making any effort to control the lorry dashed to the tempo. The accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the lorry alone. The Tribunal even though has given a finding that driver of the tempo has taken all precautionary measures while parking the vehicle and no charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the tempo for negligence, has erred in holding that driver of the tempo has contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER Therefore, in view of the above, we hold that the driver of the lorry alone was negligent in causing the accident. To that extent, the finding of the Tribunal in respect of negligence is modified. The insurer of lorry is liable to indemnify the owner of the tempo and pay entire compensation to the claimants.
RE: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION IN MVC 27/2016 (claimant - Sharif)
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But he has not produced any documents to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2015, notional income shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained Type-II open fracture both bones of right leg and fracture 3 and 5 metatarsal right foot bones with PTRA right leg. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 20%. The claimant is aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.345,600/- (Rs.8,000*12*18*20%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000*3 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 44 days in the hospital and subsequently received further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, we are inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs,35,000/-
Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
As awarded As awarded
by the by this
Compensation under Tribunal Court
different Heads
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 40,000 60,000
Medical expenses 120,000 120,000
Food, nourishment, 19,000 19,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 18,000 24,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 25,000 35,000
Loss of future income 259,200 345,600
Total 481,200 603,600
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN MVC 358/2015 (Deceased - Pooja @ Bheemanna)
11. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2015, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,200/-. Since claimants are 6 in numbers, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family, instead of 1/5th deducted by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,12,800/-
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(Rs.11,200*12*16*3/4) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of consortium'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 16,12,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 240,000
Total 18,82,800
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN MVC 399/2015 (Deceased - Basavaraj)
12. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2015, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,200/-. Since claimant Nos.1 to 4 are dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '17'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.11,200*12*17*3/4) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), each of the claimant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of consortium'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 17,13,600
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 160,000
Total 19,03,600
IN MVC 400/2015 (Deceased - Anjinamma)
13. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2015, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,200/-. Since claimant Nos.1 to 4 are dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is '18'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.11,200*12*18*3/4) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB MFA No. 201276 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019 MFA No. 201305 of 2019 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER 'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), each of the claimant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of consortium'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 18,14,400
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 160,000
Total 20,04,400
14. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeals are allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimant in MVC 27/2016 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.603,600/-.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
d) The claimant in MVC 358/2015 is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.18,82,800/-
e) The claimant in MVC 399/2015 is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.19,03,600/-
f) The claimant in MVC 400/2015 is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.20,04,400/-
g) The Insurance Company (insurer of lorry) is directed
to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. in all the cases from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
h) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47