Karnataka High Court
Basavarajappa Basappa Harijan @ vs Shekappa S/O Bhimappa ... on 8 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635
MFA No. 100807 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100807 OF 2015
(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJAPPA BASAPPA
HARIJAN @ DODDAMANI,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MULAKOPPA,
TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
RANEBENNUR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR
DIST: HAVERI.
2. PRASHANTH
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI S/O. BASAPPA HARIJAN @ DODDAMANI,
Digitally signed by AGE: 27 YEARS,
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
DHARWAD
R/O: MULAKOPPA,
TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
RANEBENNUR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR
DIST: HAVERI.
3. NIRMALA
W/O. NAGARAJ GOMAL,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635
MFA No. 100807 of 2015
HC-KAR
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. MULAKOPPA,
TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
RANEBENNUR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHEKAPPA
S/O. BHIMAPPA HOLABIKONDADAVAR,
R/O: NARASAPUR, TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
N.K. COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR,
HUBBALLI, BRANCH: SAGAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-NOTICE DISPENSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ON
EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT,
RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.577/2012 DATED 05.05.2014, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
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:13635
MFA No. 100807 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Vijayakumar B.Horatti learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.N.R.Kuppelur learned counsel for respondent No.2. At request of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for brevity) through orders in MVC No.577/2012 dated 05.05.2014 the claimants therein are before this Court.
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in a road traffic accident that occurred on 31.01.2012, the first appellant lost his wife and appellants No.2 and 3 lost their mother that is Smt.Ratnamma. Learned counsel submits that the deceased Ratnamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for brevity) by doing coolie work as well as by vending milk -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635 MFA No. 100807 of 2015 HC-KAR was earning ₹8,000/- per month. She was contributing her entire earnings towards the welfare of her husband and children. But the tribunal did not award any sum as compensation under the head loss of dependency which is most unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby seeks to award the compensation which the appellants are entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
4. Learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that the second appellant is the major son and the third appellant is the married daughter of the deceased. Thus they were not depending upon the earnings of the deceased as on the date of the accident and therefore, the observation of the tribunal that they are not entitled to compensation under the head loss of dependency needs no interference.
5. A meticulous perusal of the impugned order reveals an observation by the tribunal at page 13 that loss of dependency would come to ₹1,13,400/-. However, the tribunal awarded the said amount towards loss of estate. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635 MFA No. 100807 of 2015 HC-KAR
6. In the decision that is relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellants in the case between National Insurance Company Limited and Birender & Others1 Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 14 held as follows:
"14. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause
(c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus:-
"9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. .....The Tribunal has a duty to make an award. determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part 1 (2020) 11 SCC 356 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635 MFA No. 100807 of 2015 HC-KAR relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a de-ceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representa-tive under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 1.e. un-der Section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is Inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only.
Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child."
In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635 MFA No. 100807 of 2015 HC-KAR representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning."
7. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that the appellants are having permanent jobs or have substantial sources of income. Either it is mother or father, they contribute their earnings towards the welfare of their children. Hence, this Court is of the view that the first appellant being the husband and the appellants No.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased are entitled for the compensation to compensate the monetary loss which they would not have sustained had the deceased lived longer.
8. The accident occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is taken as ₹6,500/- per month. The deceased died at the age of 42 years. Hence, 25% of the earnings of the deceased are required to be added towards future prospects as per the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635 MFA No. 100807 of 2015 HC-KAR decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi2. As the dependents are three in number, 1/3rd of the earnings of the deceased are required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for herself had she been alive as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another3. Also, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision referred above is '14'. With these parameters, the compensation which the appellants would receive under the head loss of dependency is as under:
Heads Amount in ₹ Notional income 6,500.00 Annual income 78,000.00 On adding 25% towards future prospects 97,500.00 On deducting one third towards personal 65,000.00 and living expenses Loss of dependency, on applying 9,10,000.00 appropriate multiplier '14' 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635 MFA No. 100807 of 2015 HC-KAR
9. Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of ₹9,10,000/- under the head loss of the dependency. Also the appellants are entitled to a sum of ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate. The first appellant being the husband of the deceased, is entitled to ₹40,000/- under the head loss of spousal consortium. Appellants No.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased are entitled to ₹40,000/- under the head loss of parental consortium. Thus the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive is as follows:
Heads Amount in ₹
Loss of dependency 9,10,000.00
Funeral expenses 15,000.00
loss of estate 15,000.00
loss of spousal consortium 40,000.00
loss of parental consortium 40,000.00
TOTAL 10,20,000.00
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635
MFA No. 100807 of 2015
HC-KAR
10. Thus by all the above discussion, it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of ₹10,20,000/- as compensation.
11. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur through orders in MVC No.577/2012 dated 05.05.2014 is enhanced from ₹1,53,400/- to 10,20,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635 MFA No. 100807 of 2015 HC-KAR from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Appellant No.1 being the husband of the deceased is entitled to receive 50% of the enhanced sum. Appellants No.2 and 3 are entitled to receive 25% each.
(vi) On deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26