Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Rekha W/O Ravasab Kasti on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274
MFA No. 101819 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101819 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI,
BELAGAVI.
REP: BY DEPUTY MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, KUSUGAL ROAD,
HUBLI-13.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR AND:
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.13 11:24:49
+0530
1. SMT. REKHA,
W/O RAVASAB KASTI
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NASALAPUR,
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. KUMARI SWETHA,
D/O RAVASAB KASTI,
AGE: MINOR, STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274
MFA No. 101819 of 2015
HC-KAR
R/O: NASALAPUR,
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. KUMAR OMKAR,
S/O RAVASAB KASTI,
AGE: MINOR, STUDENT,
R/O: NASALAPUR,
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS
HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.1.
4. SMT. SHARUBAI,
W/O APPASAB KASTI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NASALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI ANNASAB HONNAPPA KESTI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NASALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)
(NOTICE R5-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF M.V.ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.03.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1463/2014, ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT RAIBAG, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.14,29,864/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
6% P.A. FROM TEH DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL
THE DATE, OF DEPOSIT & ETC. .
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274
MFA No. 101819 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.) This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the judgment and award, dated 07.03.2015, passed in M.V.C. No. 1463/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raibag hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') challenging quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Ravasab Appasab Kesti. It was stated in the claim petition that on 05.02.2024, at about 4.00 p.m., said Ravasab Appasab Kesti was proceeding on motorcycle -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274 MFA No. 101819 of 2015 HC-KAR bearing bearing registration No.KA-23/EA-2113 as a pillion rider towards Nasalapur village. It was stated that respondent No.1, who is the uncle of the said Ravasab Appasab Kesti, was riding the said motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and when they came near the place of the accident i.e., Nasalapur village on Akali-Raibag Road, respondent No.1 lost control over the motorcycle and dashed to a roadside Neem tree and caused accident due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Dr.Magadum Hospital, Ankali, where he died due to accidental injuries. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 30 years; the deceased owned agricultural land and used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum by raising commercial crops like sugarcane etc., and was maintaining the family. Due to death of the deceased, the claimants lost earnings so as to maintain family, his love and affection and consortium. Hence, the claimants sought for compensation.
4. On receipt of notice of the claim petition, respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle, filed his objection -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274 MFA No. 101819 of 2015 HC-KAR statement wherein he denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that he was riding the motor cycle on the left side of the road at a moderate speed and by following the traffic rules; he was having valid driving licence and since the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company, he was not liable to pay compensation. He further contended that if at all the Court intended to award compensation, then the liability may be saddled on respondent No.2-insurance company. Hence, respondent No.1 prayed dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Respondent No.2-insurer appeared though its counsel and filed its objection statement denying the nature and manner of the accident and further contended that because of the negligence of the petitioner and as such, the insurer was not laible to pay compensation. It was further stated that its liability, if any, was subject to validity of the driving licence and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the provisions of -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274 MFA No. 101819 of 2015 HC-KAR the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, respondent No.2-insurer prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. On behalf of the claimants, petitioner No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1, one Shri Annasab as P.W.2, and got marked ten documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined. However, copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R.1 on behalf of the respondents.
7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence of both sides, hearing the arguments of both sides, came to conclusion that the claimants were entitled for a total compensation of Rs.14,29,864/- on different heads as under:
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 13,59,864/-
2. Towards funeral expenses, transportation of dead body Rs. 15,000/-
3. Towards consortium to wife Rs. 25,000/-
4. Towards love and affection to children (claimants No.2 and 3 -
Rs.10,000/- each) Rs. 20,000/-
5. Towards loss of earning son (to petitioner No.4) Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 14,29,864/--7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274 MFA No. 101819 of 2015 HC-KAR The Tribunal awarded the above compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurance company is before this Court.
8. The appellant-insurer is challenging the aforesaid judgment and award mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.
9. Sri. M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side as the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.7,500/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and therefore, he would contend that the loss of dependency requires to be recalculated by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. He would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the conventional heads is also on the higher side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274 MFA No. 101819 of 2015 HC-KAR
10. On the other hand, Sri. K.Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same requires no interference. He would further submit that there are four dependants and as such the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to have been at 1/4th of the income of the deceased, but the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. He further submits that the claimants would be entitled to higher compensation under the conventional heads i.e., 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1. However, learned counsel fairly submits that since the respondents/claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal be confirmed, and the appeal filed by the insurer be dismissed.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274 MFA No. 101819 of 2015 HC-KAR
11. Having heard the learned counsel on both side and on perusal of the appeal papers, with original records, the only point that arises for consideration is, "Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side?"
12. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:
(a) On perusal of the record, it is noticed that the appellant is not seriously disputing the date and time of the accident; the manner in which the accident has occurred; the age of the deceased. Appellant is disputing the income taken by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency. There is no material produced before the Tribunal to assess the actual income of the deceased. Under these circumstances, the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has to be looked into, according to which, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.7,500/- per month in respect of an accidental death of a person in the year 2014.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274 MFA No. 101819 of 2015 HC-KAR Further, in view of Pranay Sethi's case (supra), compensation towards 'future prospects' needs to be awarded at the rate of 40% of the assess income. It is to be noted that there are four dependants and the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th of the assessed income, but the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the assessed income.
(b) The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to claimants No.2 and 3 towards loss of love and affection; Rs.25,000/- to wife-petitioner No.1 towards loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- to mother- petitioner No.4 towards loss of earning son; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body and other miscellaneous expenses. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), each of the claimants Nos.1 to 4 would be entitled to sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', 'filial consortium' and 'parental consortium'; and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274 MFA No. 101819 of 2015 HC-KAR Rs.15,000/- each under the head 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
(c) Considering the above, if the compensation is recalculated, the claimants would be entitled to higher compensation than what is awarded by the Tribunal.
13. The claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. In the above circumstances, the judgment and award of the Tribunal requires no interference and the same is confirmed.
14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurer is dismissed by confirming the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
Registry to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal and also the Trial Court records forthwith.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11