Karnataka High Court
Basavarajappa Basappa Harijan @ vs Shekappa S/O Bhimappa ... on 8 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636
MFA No. 100808 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. 100808/2015(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJAPPA BASAPPA
HARIJAN @ DODDAMANI,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
RANEBENNUR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR
DIST: HAVERI.
2. PRASHANTH
S/O. BASAPPA HARIJAN @ DODDAMANI,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
GIRIJA A. R/O: MULAKOPPA,
BYAHATTI
TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGHCOURT
NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD RANEBENNUR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR
DIST: HAVERI.
3. NIRMALA
W/O. NAGARAJ GOMAL,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. MULAKOPPA,
TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636
MFA No. 100808 of 2015
HC-KAR
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.578/2012 DATED 05.05.2014, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636
MFA No. 100808 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Sri.Vijaykumar 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. The first appellant being the father, the second appellant being the brother, and the third appellant being the sister of the deceased Kantesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased', for brevity), filed a petition claiming compensation of ₹25,00,000/- in total. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, which entertained the case as MVC No.578/2012, rendered orders on 05.05.2014, holding that the appellants are entitled to the sum of ₹1,77,600/- as compensation. Projecting that they -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636 MFA No. 100808 of 2015 HC-KAR are entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is filed.
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased as an agricultural coolie and by doing milk vending business, was earning ₹10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as ₹4,500/- per month only. Learned counsel states that, the Tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. Learned counsel submits that, the appellants were depending upon the earnings of the deceased by the date of accident and therefore, they are entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, is that appellant No.2 is the elder brother of the deceased and he had his own sources of earnings, and likewise, appellant -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636 MFA No. 100808 of 2015 HC-KAR No.3 is the elder sister of the deceased who got married, and thus, they cannot be termed as dependents of the deceased.
5. No material whatsoever is projected to show that appellants No.2 and 3 were depending upon the earnings of the deceased by the date of accident. However, the fact remains is that the first appellant being the father of the deceased, can be considered to be the dependent of the deceased in light of the fact that the deceased had his own sources of earnings and was a bachelor by the date of accident. Thus, this Court holds that the first appellant is entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
6. The accident occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the deceased can be taken as ₹6,500/- per month. It is not in dispute that the deceased lost his life at the age of 26 years. Also, it is not in dispute that the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636 MFA No. 100808 of 2015 HC-KAR deceased died as bachelor. Hence, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.1, 40% of the earnings of the deceased are required to be added towards future prospects. Also, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, 50% of the earnings of the deceased are required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case referred to supra, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 17.
7. Thus, with the above parameters, the compensation which the first appellant is entitled to under the head 'loss of dependency' is as follows: 1
(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636 MFA No. 100808 of 2015 HC-KAR Notional income ₹6,500.00 Annual income ₹78,000.00 On adding 40% towards ₹1,09,200.00 future prospects On deducting 50% towards ₹54,600.00 personal and living expenses Loss of dependency on ₹9,28,200.00 applying appropriate multiplier 17
8. Thus the first appellant is entitled to a sum of ₹9,28,200/- under the head 'loss of dependency'.
9. Together with the said amount, the appellants are entitled to ₹15,000 towards 'funeral expenses' and ₹15,000 towards 'loss of estate'. The first appellant is also entitled to a sum of ₹40,000 under the head 'loss of filial consortium'.
10. Thus, the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive is as under:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636 MFA No. 100808 of 2015 HC-KAR Loss of dependency ₹ 9,28,200.00 Funeral expenses ₹ 15,000.00 Loss of estate ₹ 15,000.00 Loss of filial consortium ₹ 40,000.00 Total ₹ 9,98,200.00
11. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The compensation granted by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, through orders in MVC No.578/2012 dated 05.05.2014 is enhanced from ₹1,77,600 to ₹9,98,200.
iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636 MFA No. 100808 of 2015 HC-KAR 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%, the second appellant to 15%, and the third appellant to 15%.
vi. On deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27