Karnataka High Court
Thimmanagouda vs Revanna A.P And Ors on 20 November, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB
MFA No. 201539 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201539 OF 2024 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THIMMANAGOUDA
S/O LAXMAN PATIL,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: CHIKKOOR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT : BAGALKOTE - 587 122.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH COURT
1. REVANNA A.P
OF KARNATAKA
S/O PRASANNA KUMAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: ANKANAYAKANA VILLAGE,
TALUKA: ARKALGUD,
DISTRICT : HASSAN - 573 102.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
1ST FLOOR, BIDARI COMPLEX,
S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
3. AFTAB
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB
MFA No. 201539 of 2024
HC-KAR
S/O MOHAMMED HANIF ATTAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: HOUSE NO.749, SHAH ANSAR GALLI,
PEERANWADI TQ: AND DIST: 590 014.
4. THE MANAGER LEGAL/CLAIMS,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, DARVAR SQUARE,
RAM MANDIR ROAD, OPPOSITE BALAJI,
TEMPLE VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O DT. 02.07.2025 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.12.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER- MACT- XII, AT
VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.594/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, 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. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimant challenging the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB MFA No. 201539 of 2024 HC-KAR judgment and award dated 31.12.2022 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-XII, Vijayapura in MVC No.594/2021.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 23.03.2021 at about 12.40 hours, Arebail, Yallapur, Uttar Kannada, the deceased Shakuntala and others were traveling in an unnumbered jeep, towards Dharmasthala and the said jeep was being driven by the claimant, in a slow and cautious manner. When the said jeep came near Arebail, Yallapur, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-22/B-9755, was wrongly parked in the middle of the road without taking any precautions regarding the public safety i.e. he did not put stones, near the vehicle and there was nobody to indicate the parked vehicle. Looking to the vehicle, the claimant slow down his jeep, at that time, another lorry driver bearing Registration No.KA-13/C-4468 came from hind side in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, the said lorry driver unable to control the same, as it was -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB MFA No. 201539 of 2024 HC-KAR heavily loaded with murmum, dashed and dragged the jeep of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the said jeep was caught between both the lorries. Due to impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.2 and 4 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent Nos.1 and 3, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and were 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 petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.15,48,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB MFA No. 201539 of 2024 HC-KAR and directed respondent Nos.2 and 4 to deposit 50% each out of the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, the claimant assert that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/- by working as an agriculturist. However, the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, the Tribunal, instead of deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, has deducted 50%. The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA VS.
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
c) Thirdly, 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB MFA No. 201539 of 2024 HC-KAR claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
d) 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 sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter- contentions:
a) Firstly, although the claimant claim that the deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month, except producing the RTC, he has not produced any other documents to substantiate his claim. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Secondly, since the claimant is the only dependant, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB MFA No. 201539 of 2024 HC-KAR
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 appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that Shakuntala died in the road traffic accident occurred on 23.03.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles by their drivers bearing Registration Nos.KA-22/B-9755 and KA-13/C- 4468.
10. The claimant claim that deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Except for producing the RTC, the claimant has not produced any other documents to substantial the claim. 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB MFA No. 201539 of 2024 HC-KAR Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2021, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.14,250/- p.m. The Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.19,950/-. The claimant is the husband of the deceased. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'SARLA VERMA', (supra), it is appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as her contribution to the family. The Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased as '16'. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.25,53,600/- (Rs.19,950*12*16*2/3) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
11. In addition, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of 'loss of estate' and compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB MFA No. 201539 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), claimant, husband of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'
13. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 25,53,600
Funeral expenses 16,500
Loss of estate 16,500
Loss of spousal consortium 44,000
Total 26,30,600
14. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB MFA No. 201539 of 2024 HC-KAR
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.26,30,600/- as against Rs.15,48,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) Respondent Nos.2 and 4-Insurance Companies are directed to deposit 50% each of the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. 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.
e) 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 HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48