Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd vs Irappa S/O Revanshiddappa Vattar on 26 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
MFA No. 102887 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102887 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
N.K.COMPLEX KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.,CLUB ROAD,
MADIWALE COMPLEX,
II FLOOR, BELGAUM
POLICY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IRAPPA S/O. REVANSHIDDAPPA VATTAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. VIDYAGIRI,
14TH CROSS, BAGALKOT
TQ and DIST: BAGALKOT.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
2. MAHAMMADSAB S/O. HUSENSAB TAHSILDAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
SHELAR
R/O. HORAKERI ONI,
Date: 2025.09.27
11:23:32 +0530 NARGUND.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. M. KALAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 16.07.2014 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND MACT-I, BAGALKOT IN MVC NO.1/2011, AND PASS OTHER
ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE OR THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
MFA No. 102887 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 16.07.2014 passed in MVC No.1/2011 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, and MACT-I, Bagalkot.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
2.1. On 05.01.2010, the deceased Savitri and the petitioner were waiting for arrival of a bus on Navalgund -
Annigeri road. At that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-26/L-2413, ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the deceased. As a result, she sustained the grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries during treatment. The petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased. Hence, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504 MFA No. 102887 of 2014 HC-KAR compensation for the death of his wife Smt. Savithri. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
3. The Tribunal issued a notice to the owner of the motorcycle. Despite the service of notice, he remained unrepresented, and was placed ex-parte.
4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, and marked 7 documents as -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504 MFA No. 102887 of 2014 HC-KAR Exs.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company has not examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 16.07.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,18,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 04.01.2011 till realisation and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same.
8. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and also learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504 MFA No. 102887 of 2014 HC-KAR deceased at Rs.6,000/-. He submits that, in the absence of income proof, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010. The income has to be assessed at Rs.5,500/-. He further submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for petitioner supported the impugned judgment and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation.
14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and also the death of the deceased Savitri in -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504 MFA No. 102887 of 2014 HC-KAR the road traffic accident. Though it is contended that the deceased was doing agricultural coolie work and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m., the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the notional income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010. The notional income should be taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m. whereas the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.6,000/- p.m. It is noticed that, the Tribunal has not added 40% of the future prospects to the income of the deceased in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1 which comes to Rs.7,700/- There is one dependant of the deceased, and therefore, 50% has to deducted from the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses which comes to Rs.3,850/-. The Tribunal, also wrongly applied the multiplier of '16' as the deceased was aged 28 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504 MFA No. 102887 of 2014 HC-KAR years old as of the date of the accident and the correct multiplier applicable would be '17'. Considering these aspects, the loss of dependency is worked out to Rs.7,85,400/- (Rs.3,850x12x17). Further, there is one petitioner and he is entitled to Rs.48,000/- towards loss of consortium. In addition to it, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.36,000/- towards the funeral expenses and the loss of estate. In total, the compensation to be awarded is Rs.8,69,400/- whereas, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.8,18,000/- which is on the lower side. However, the petitioner has not filed any appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this Court. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum of compensation is answered accordingly.
15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504 MFA No. 102887 of 2014 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 16.07.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.1/2011 by the learned District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I, Bagalkot, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The office is directed to transmit the records and the amount in deposit to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA,NAA CT:ANB