Karnataka High Court
Smt.Geeta W/O Devendrappa Lamani vs Mounesh S/O Nagappa Badiger on 1 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
MFA No. 102198 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102198 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GEETA W/O DEVENDRAPPA LAMANI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
2. SANDESH S/O DEVENDRAPPA LAMANI
AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. SHANTAWWA W/O LAXMAN LAMANI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
ALL ARE R/O: GUNDUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
(APPELL.NO.2 BEARING MINOR R/BY HER
NATURAL MOTHER MINOR GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHVENDRA PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
RAKESH S
AND:
HARIHAR
Digitally signed by RAKESH
S HARIHAR
1. MOUNESH S/O NAGAPPA BADIGER
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.08.04 11:44:57
+0530 AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
(OWNER OF MAHINDRA TEMPO NO.KA27/5060)
R/O HANGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO, DIVISION OFFICE, 127/A, BHAVANI
ARCADE,
NEAR, OLD BUS STAND, COTTON MARKET,
OPP. BASAVA VANA, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
MFA No. 102198 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.57/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HANGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded under judgment and
award dated 5.4.2019 passed in MVC No.57/2016 on the file
of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT,
Hangal1.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that
the appellants who are the wife, minor son and mother of
the deceased Devendrappa Lamani, filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the MV Act contending that on
28.03.2015, the deceased Devendrappa along with his
For short 'Tribunal'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
HC-KAR
daughter was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Chassis
No.MD2A52CZ3DWF22844 and Engine No.JEZWDF14513
from Ankola via Sirsi-Girasinakoppa side towards Hangal. At
that time, Mahindra Tempo bearing reg.No.KA-27/5060
driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the
said accident, the deceased Devendrappa & his daughter fell
down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries and
while on the way to hospital, they succumbed to the injuries.
It is averred that the deceased Devendrappa was aged 32
years and earning Rs.21,000/- per month by working as Tiles
Mestri.
3. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed
written statement denying the age, income and avocation of
the deceased and denied that the occurrence of the accident
was due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending
Mahindra Tempo vehicle. It was contended that the driver of
the offending Tempo was not having valid and effective
driving license as on the date of the accident. Hence, sought
to dismiss the claim petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
HC-KAR
4. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.8,38,000/- with 7% interest per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Aggrieved by the same, the claimants are before this Court
seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra Purohit,
appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the
Tribunal has committed an error in assessing income of the
deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month, inasmuch as
the deceased was working as Tiles Mestri and earning a sum
of Rs.21,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal
has also committed an error in not awarding any
compensation towards future prospects of the deceased. He
further submits that the award of compensation by the
Tribunal on the conventional heads is also on the lower side,
he seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
6. Per contra, Sri. M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel
for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
HC-KAR
impugned judgment and award and submits that since the
appellants have not produced any acceptable evidence to
substantiate the claim of the income of the deceased, the
assessment of notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month by
the Tribunal is just and proper. He further submits that the
award of compensation by the Tribunal on the other heads is
in consonance with the law and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court and this Court, which need not be interfered with by
this Court in this appeal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2
and perused the appeal papers along with original records.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material available on record, the only
point that would fall for consideration in the present appeal
is, whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just
and proper?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
HC-KAR
9. Answer to the above point would be in the
"negative" for the following reasons:
(a) The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the
accident and the liability of the Insurance Company. It is also
not in dispute that the appellants are the legal heirs of the
deceased Devendrappa, who was aged about 32 years at the
time of the accident.
(b) The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per
month, which is on the lower side. The claimants have not
produced any documentary evidence to establish the exact
income of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any
cogent and acceptable evidence on record, this Court and the
Lok Adalaths normally place reliance on the notional income
chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority to assess the income in the motor vehicle accident
claims. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2015
and as per the chart referred to supra, the notional income
of the deceased is Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, this
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
HC-KAR
Court re-assesses the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-
per month.
(c) The Tribunal committed an error in not awarding
compensation towards loss of future prospects of the
deceased. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about
32 years and in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Others2, since the deceased was below the
age of 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for addition
of 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future
prospects. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 16, which is
correct. There are three dependents, hence, the Tribunal has
rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled for
compensation under the head loss of dependency as under:
Rs.8,000 + 40% x 12 X 16 x 2/3 = Rs.14,33,600/-
(d) The Tribunal awarded a meager compensation
under the conventional heads. Keeping in mind the law laid
2017 (16) SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
HC-KAR
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram &
Others3 as well as Pranay Sethi's case supra, the
claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- each
towards loss of consortium, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses including
10% escalation. The appellants are entitled for the following
modified compensation:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.14,33,600/-
2 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each) Rs. 1,32,000/-
3 Loss of Estate & funeral expenses Rs. 33,000/-
Total Rs.15,98,600/-
10. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.15,98,600/- as against Rs.8,38,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment & award of the
Tribunal is modified holding that the
claimants are entitled to total compensation
2018 ACJ 2782
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB
HC-KAR
of Rs.15,98,600/- as against
Rs.8,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii. The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till date of payment.
iv. Respondent/Insurance Company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation amount
with accrued interest before the Tribunal
within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
v. The apportionment and disbursement shall
be made as per award of the Tribunal.
vi. Registry to transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
vii. Draw modified award accordingly.
viii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:VP
