Karnataka High Court
Parvatavva W/O Chandrashekhar ... vs Maruti S/O Hanamantappa Jadhav on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
MFA No. 102401 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102401 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PARVATAVVA
W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KORISHETTI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. P.B. HIREMATH JYOTI NILAYA,
3RD MAIN 5TH CROSS, SIDDLINGANAGAR,
GADAG-582101.
2. BASAVARAJ
S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KORISHETTI,
GIRIJA A.
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BYAHATTI R/O. C/O. P.B. HIREMATH JYOTI NILAYA,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI 3RD MAIN 5TH CROSS, SIDDLINGANAGAR,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
GADAG-582101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MARUTI
S/O. HANAMANTAPPA JADHAV,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MARATHA GALLI, SHIRAHHATTI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
MFA No. 102401 of 2016
HC-KAR
DIST: GADAG-582120.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RENUKA ARAROAD, 1ST FLOOR,
INFRONT OF GURU TOTONDARYA MATH,
J.T.ROAD, GADAG-582101.
3. SHANMUKHAPPA
S/O. VEERAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: C/O: 5TH CROSS,
SIDDLINGANAGAR GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3-DECEASED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.254/2011
DATED 15-09-2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG UNDER ALL
PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
MFA No. 102401 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Ms. Shaila Bellikatti learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ms. Sharmila M. Patil learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag through orders in MVC 254 of 2011 dated 15.09.2015 the claimants' therein preferred the present appeal.
3. It is not in dispute that the first appellant is the wife and the second appellant is the son of the deceased Chandrashekhar (hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased' for brevity), who died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2011. Only grievance exhibited by learned counsel for the appellants is that the tribunal failed to add future prospects and insufficiency of compensation granted under conventional heads. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304 MFA No. 102401 of 2016 HC-KAR
4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the amount which the deceased would have paid towards professional tax and income tax is required to be deducted out of the earnings of the deceased.
5. Having taken the gross salary of the deceased as Rs.17,421/- per month, deducting Rs.1,000/- per month towards professional tax and income tax, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the salary of the deceased is required to be taken as Rs.16,421/- per month and Rs.1,97,052/- per annum. No interference in that regard is required. However as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the tribunal failed to add future prospects. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was aged around 44 years by the date of accident. Hence, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi1, 25% of the earnings are required 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304 MFA No. 102401 of 2016 HC-KAR to be added towards future prospects as the deceased was not on permanent job and as he was working in a private organization as clerk as on the date of accident, as per the evidence produced. Thus, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,97,052/- per annum, adding 25% towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd of the earnings towards the personal and living expenses, which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive as the dependents are two in number and applying the appropriate multiplier '14' the compensation which the appellants are entitled to towards 'loss of dependency' is as under:
Annual income Rs.1,97,052/-
On adding 25% towards future Rs.2,46,315/-
prospects
On deducting 1/3rd towards Rs.1,64,210/-
personal and living expenses
Loss of dependency, on applying Rs.22,98,940/-
appropriate multiplier '14'
6. Thus it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.22,98,940/- towards 'loss of dependency'. Also the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304 MFA No. 102401 of 2016 HC-KAR Further the first appellant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of spousal consortium' and the second appellant being the son of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of parental consortium'. The total compensation which the appellants are thus entitled to is as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards loss of dependency 22,98,940/-
Towards loss of spousal consortium 40,000/-
Towards loss of parental 40,000/-
consortium
Towards loss of estate 15,000/-
Towards funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 24,08,940/-
7. The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.18,79,152/- as compensation. However the aforementioned discussion makes it clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.24,08,940/- as compensation. Therefore the appeal is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304 MFA No. 102401 of 2016 HC-KAR
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag through orders in MVC 254 of 2011 dated 15.09.2015 is enhanced from Rs.18,79,152/- to Rs.24,08,940/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit except for the period of delay of 228 days as per orders in IA No.1 of 2017.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Out of the enhanced sum, the first appellant is entitled to 70% and the second appellant to 30%.
(vi) On deposit, appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21