Karnataka High Court
Basavarajeswari vs Ramesh Babu on 5 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
MFA No. 100356 of 2021
HC-KAR
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH 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.100356 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BASAVARAJESWARI,
W/O LATE HAMPA REDDY,
AGE 35 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE.
2. N. SANDYA D/O. LATE HAMPA REDDY,
AGE 19 YEARS, (ATTAINED MAJORITY) STUDENT.
3. MINOR N. SANJAY S/O LATE HAMPA REDDY,
AGE 16 YEARS, STUDENT,
R/BY. HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. BASAVARAJESWARI
ALL ARE R/O DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DIST.
NOW RESIDING AT HARIGANADONI VILLAGE,
VINAYAKA
BV BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
- APPELLANTS
Date: 2025.08.07 12:20:01
+0530
(BY SRI. B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T. RAMESH BABU S/O. T. DARE SAWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING
REG. NO. A.P-03/TF-1557,
R/O. R.R. PURAM VILLAGE,
S.R. PURAM MANDALAM,
CHITOOR, DIST. ANDHRA PRADESH AND
D.L. NO.2961/TPT/1997,
BADGE NO.7046.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
MFA No. 100356 of 2021
HC-KAR
2. J. SHANMUGAM S/O. J. HARI BABU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING
REG. NO. A.P-03/TF-1557,
R/O. R.R. PURAM VILLAGE,
S.R. PURAM MANDALAM,
CHITOOR, DIST. ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
EDIGA HOTEL COMPLEX,
DOUBLE ROAD, BALLARI.
BEARING POLICY
NO. 61030031160150000231
VALID FROM 30.03.2017 TO 29.03.2018
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 20.11.2019 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO. 764/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, 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
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
MFA No. 100356 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the dependents of late Hampa
Reddy challenging the judgment and award dated
20.11.2019 passed in M.V.C. No. 764/2018 by the MACT-
II, Ballari (for short, 'the Tribunal') being dissatisfied with
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
and seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.2017 at
about 10.00 a.m. Hampa Reddy (victim) along with his
daughter in law were proceeding on the motorcycle
bearing No. KA-35-EB-9440 from Dharmasagara towards
Hosapate. When they reached near Anika Hyundai
showroom on NH-63 Ballari-Hosapete road, a lorry bearing
Reg. No. AP-03-TF-1557 came in high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle.
Due to the accident Hampa Reddy succumbed to the
injuries on the spot.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
3. The respondents 1 to 3 are served and represented.
The respondent No.3-insurer has contested the claim and
filed statement of objections denying the averments and
sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent
No.2 adopted the objection statement.
4. The claimants have filed claim petition seeking
compensation for the death of Hampa Reddy. They have
contended that the deceased was hale and healthy at the
time of accident, he was aged 38 years, working as
agriculturist cum LIC agent earning Rs.5,00,000/- per
annum from agriculture and Rs.15,000/- per month as LIC
agent. The Tribunal after evaluating the oral and
documentary evidence, assessed income of the deceased
at Rs.2,00,000/- p.a., applied the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National India Co.,
Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.1 and added 10% of the
established income towards future prospects. Thus the
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.16,13,333/-
AIR 2017 SC 5157
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
towards loss of dependency, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards
consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral
expenses and loss of estate. The claimants are in appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Sri B. Chidananda, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave
error in assessing the income of the deceased at
Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. which is contrary to Ex.P.9. Further,
the Tribunal has committed error in ignoring Ex.P.10 to
P.12 the RTCs of the land owned by the deceased. Due to
the untimely death of Hampa Reddy, his wife and children
are unable to cultivate the land. Hence notional income is
required to be assessed which they ought to have earned
from the agricultural land. Hence he seeks to reassess
income of the deceased appropriately taking note of
Exs.P.9 and Exs.P.10 to P.12. It is further argued that the
Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation on
conventional heads. Hence he seeks to allow the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, Sri Rajashekar S. Arani, learned counsel
for respondent No.2 supporting the impugned judgment
and award of the Tribunal submitted that the author of
Ex.P.9 has not been examined before the Tribunal and
hence no credence can be given to the arguments
advanced on the other side. It is further submitted that
though the claimants have produced RTCs but they do not
indicate that they have suffered financial loss / difficulty
and unable to earn any income due to the untimely death
of Hampa Reddy. The lands are very much available and
the claimants continue to earn income. Hence assessment
of income by the Tribunal is just and proper which does
not call for interference. The counsel for the insurer
therefore seeks to dismiss the appeal.
7. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the
parties and carefully perused the material documents
placed on record. Upon hearing, the only point which
would arise for consideration is:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation?
The aforesaid point is answered 'partly in the
affirmative' for the following reasons.
8. It is not in dispute that Hampa Reddy, husband of
claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 and 3, died in
the road traffic accident on 27.10.2017. It is also not in
dispute that the liability is saddled on respondent No.3-
insurer of the offending vehicle. The deceased was aged
52 years as on the date of accident, was a LIC agent
earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. It is further claimed that
deceased owned agricultural lands and earning
Rs.5,00,000/- from agriculture activity.
9. In support of the contention with regard to the
income, the claimants have produced Ex.P.9, the
statement issued by LIC which indicate that the deceased
was a LIC agent having code No.228068H and the points
earned by him as Agent, is also indicated in the said
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
statement. Ex.P.9 indicates that the deceased has earned
commission from 2011-12 to 2016-17. The said document
also indicates that the commission is paid on renewal of
the policy and also commission paid for the first year of
the payment of the premium by the customers. However
the Tribunal taking note of the said document at
paragraph No.20 has assessed the income of the deceased
at Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. In our considered view, the Tribunal
has committed error in ignoring the commission received
by the deceased for the first year of the sale of policy to
the customers and the commission earned by him for the
respective years. Taking into account Ex.P.9 the average
income of the deceased would be Rs.3,51,025/- p.a. Out
of the said sum, 10% has to be deducted towards income
tax, i.e., Rs.35,103/- and Rs.2,500/- to be deducted
towards professional tax. Hence, total sum of Rs.37,603/-
if deducted, the gross annual income would be
Rs.3,13,422/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
10. The contention of the appellants that the deceased
had owned lands and earning income from agriculture,
cannot be considered for the simple reason that due to the
untimely death of the deceased there is no evidence
placed on record that income of the family from
agriculture is reduced. Hence, the said contention cannot
be considered.
11. Admittedly the deceased was aged 52 years. Hence
appropriate addition towards loss of future prospects
would be 10% as per Pranay Sethi (supra). There are
three dependents. Hence, 1/3rd has to be deducted
towards personal expenses. Thus the compensation
towards loss of dependency is reassessed at
Rs.25,28,269./-.
12. The claimants are the wife and children of the
deceased. They are entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and a sum of
Rs.15,000/- each towards transportation of dead body and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
funeral expenses and loss of estate. In view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu
Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others2 the claimants are
entitled for 10% escalation on the said amount.
13. Thus the claimants are entitled for total
compensation as under:
Sl. No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency 25,28,269.00
(3,13,422/- + 31,342 x 11 x 2/3)
2. Loss of consortium 1,32,000.00
(44,000/- x 3)
3. Transportation of dead body and 16,500.00
funeral expenses
4. Loss of estate 16,500.00
Total 26,93,269.00
14. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7% p.a. on the
compensation without assigning any specific reasons.
Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of
claim petition till its realization.
(2018) 18 SCC 130
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
16. For the aforesaid reasons we pass the following
order:
ORDER
(a) Appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is allowed
in part. Consequently, judgment and award dated
20.11.2019 passed in M.V.C. No. 764/2018 by the
MACT-II, Ballari, is modified awarding total
compensation of Rs.26,93,269/- as against
Rs.16,83,333/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(b) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization.
(c) The insurer shall deposit the entire compensation
amount within six weeks from the date of
preparation of the award.
(d) The apportionment and deposit of the award
amount shall be in terms of the award of the
Tribunal.
(e) Office to draw award accordingly.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9797-DB
HC-KAR
(f) Records of the Tribunal shall be transmitted
forthwith.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
BVV, CT:VP
