Karnataka High Court

Shilpa W/O Chidananda Dhaduti vs Shri.Ramappa S/O Ningappa Kapali on 5 August, 2025

Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                                       -1-
                                                                      NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB
                                                                    MFA No. 100380 of 2021



                            HC-KAR



                                       IN 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.100380 OF 2021 (MV-D)
                            BETWEEN:
                            1.   SHILPA W/O CHIDANANDA DHADUTI,
                                 AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
                                 R/O. BAILHONGAL, PIN-591102,
                                 TAL. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.

                            2.   SAVITA W/O RUDRAPPA KADAKOL,
                                 AGE 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
                                 R/O. NEELAGAR GALLI, BAILHONGAL,
                                 PIN-591102, TAL. BAILHONGAL,
                                 DIST. BELAGAVI.

                            3.  SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O VEERABHADRAPPA BADLI,
                                AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
VINAYAKA
BV
                                R/O. NEELAGAR GALLI, BAILHONGAL,
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
                                PIN-591102, TAL. BAILHONGAL,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.08.07 12:20:02
+0530                           DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                                                 -   APPELLANTS
                            (BY SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:
                            1.   SHRI. RAMAPPA S/O NINGAPPA KAPALI,
                                 AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                 R/O. HUNCHANATTI, PIN-590010,
                                 TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

                            2.   NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                                 R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                            -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB
                                      MFA No. 100380 of 2021



HC-KAR



     RAMADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,
     PIN-590001, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

3.  ARUNKUMAR S/O NARAYAN SHEREGAR,
    AGE 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
    R/O. 8-2-98, SODEMATH LAND,
    BAILUKERE, POST. UDUPI,
    PIN-576101, TQ. AND DIST. UDUPI.
                                     -        RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI,
ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.01.2021 PASSED IN M.V.C.

NO. 625/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

ADDITIONAL      MOTOR    ACCIDENT    CLAIMS         TRIBUNAL,

BAILHONGAL, 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:9798-DB
                                        MFA No. 100380 of 2021



HC-KAR




                    ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants being

dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Bailhongal (for short, 'the

Tribunal') in M.V.C. No. 625/2017 dated 16.01.2021

seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts leading to the case are that on 31.07.2016

at about 8.00 p.m. Manjunath (deceased) was proceeding

on motorcycle bearing No. KA-20-EB-5110 to go to his

house at Bailhongal. When he reached near Bailvad Varti

cross on Belagavi-Bailhongal road, motorcycle bearing

No.KA-22-EL-4883 came from opposite side in high speed,

rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

motorcycle of deceased. Due to the accident, Manjunath

suffered fatal head injuries and died on the spot.

3. Claimants, who are the parents of the deceased,

have filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB

HC-KAR

lakhs. It is averred in the claim petition that deceased

was aged 24 years as on the date of accident, he was hale

and healthy, doing technical work at Aditya Milk Dairy at

Kurgund, earning Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing

the entire amount for the maintenance of the family. Due

to his untimely death the claimants are put to hardship.

The accident had occurred due to the negligence of the

rider of the offending motorcycle.

4. Respondent No.2-insurer in the objections denied the

claim petition averments and contended that the accident

as stated in the claim petition had not occurred but the

deceased himself fell from the vehicle and caused

accident. It further contended that riders of both the

motorcycle were not having a valid driving licence.

5. Respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle that

as on the date of accident the policy of insurance was in

force and liability, if any, to pay compensation, is on the

insurer.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB

HC-KAR

6. The Tribunal on the basis of averments framed

necessary issues. Mother of deceased got herself

examined as PW1 and got marked documents as per

Exs.P.1 to P.15 whereas no oral and documentary

evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and going

through the oral and documentary evidence on record,

allowed the claim petition in part with costs awarding a

total compensation of Rs.12,79,600/- with interest at 9%

p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment.

Claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation have preferred this appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

8. Sri Hanamant R. Latur, learned counsel appearing for

the claimants-appellants submits that the Tribunal has

committed grave error in assessing the income of the

deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is submitted that

deceased had completed I.T.I. Diploma course in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB

HC-KAR

Electronic & Mechanical Branch, having potential to earn at

least Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that

deceased had applied for the post of Driver in the Excise

Department. In the said Department, he received a

communication for driving test and if found eligible and

appointed, he would have received salary of Rs.30,000/-

per month. Hence, learned counsel seeks to assess

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-.

9. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal

ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the

claimants towards loss of consortium. Thus he prayed to

allow the appeal.

10. Per contra, Sri Suresh S. Gundi, learned counsel for

the insurer supports the impugned judgment and award of

the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has recorded

a clear finding that no legally acceptable evidence was

placed on record to accept income of the deceased. In

view of the same, the Tribunal has rightly assessed his

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB

HC-KAR

income at Rs.8,000/- per month which does not call for

interference. It is submitted that claimants No.1(a and b)

are the legal heirs of original claimant No.1 and hence the

Tribunal rightly awarded compensation towards

conventional heads. Thus he prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

11. 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:

Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced

compensation?

12. The aforesaid point is answered 'partly in the

affirmative' for the following reasons.

13. The pleadings and material available on record that

on 31.07.2016 son of the claimants No.1 and 2 died in a

road traffic accident. Deceased was hale and healthy and

aged about 32 years as on the date of accident. Deceased

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB

HC-KAR

had completed I.T.I. Diploma course in Electronic &

Mechanical Branch, having potential to earn at least

Rs.15,000/- per month. Further deceased had applied for

the post of Driver in the Excise Department and he

received a communication for driving test and if found

eligible and appointed, he would have received salary of

Rs.30,000/- per month. The said contention cannot be

accepted for the simple reason that the intimation received

from the Department at Exs.P.9 to P.11 would indicate

that deceased was called to attend the driving test. The

said document ipso facto does not establish income of the

deceased.

14. The claimants have produced Ex.P.14, Provisional

Notional Trade Certificate which would indicate that he

completed I.T.I. Diploma in Electronics & Mechanical

Branch. Taking note of the same we assess the notional

income of the deceased considering him as a 'skilled

labourer' at Rs.9,000/- per month. For an 'unskilled

labourer' the notional income as per the chart prepared by

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB

HC-KAR

the Lok Adalath Chart for the accidents of the year 2016 is

Rs.8,750/- per month. In view of the same, we are of the

opinion that interest of justice would be met if the income

of the deceased is assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month.

Accordingly it is considered.

15. Deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of

accident and death. In view of the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National India Co.,

Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.1 40% of the established

income should be added to the assessed income of the

deceased towards future prospects. The appropriate

multiplier applicable is '18'. Deceased was a bachelor and

hence 50% of his total income should be deducted towards

personal expenses. Hence, the compensation towards loss

of dependency would be Rs.13,16,800/- (Rs.9,000/- +

3,600/- x 12 x 18 x ½).

AIR 2017 SC 5157

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB

HC-KAR

16. Records also indicate that claim petition was filed by

the parents of the deceased and during the pendency of

the claim petition, father of the deceased died and

daughters of the claimant No.1 were brought on record.

In view of the same, we are of the considered view that

interest of justice would be met if a sum of Rs.40,000/-

each is awarded to mother and siblings of the deceased

towards loss of consortium. The claimants are entitled to

a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards transportation of dead

body and funeral expenses. 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.

Thus the claimants are entitled for total

compensation as under:

(2018) 18 SCC 130

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9798-DB

HC-KAR

Sl. No. Particulars Amount

1. Loss of dependency 13,16,900.00 (9,000+3,600 x12 x 18 x 1/2)

2. Loss of consortium 1,32,000.00 (44,000/- x 3)

3. Transportation of dead body 16,500.00

4. Funeral expenses 16,500.00 Total 14,81,800.00

15. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% 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.

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

passed by the Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,

Bailhongal in M.V.C. No. 625/2017 dated

16.01.2021, is modified awarding total