[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Maremma And Ors vs Sri. Kanakarasu P And Ors on 3 December, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201276 OF 2019 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201275 OF 2019
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201305 OF 2019
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201306 OF 2019
IN M.F.A.NO.201276/2019
BETWEEN:
SHARIF SAB
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
S/O RAJA SAB,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
AGE: 22 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O: HEGGADADINNI VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVADURGA.
NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: RAICHUR - 584 102
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KANAKARASU P.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
S/O PERUMAL,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524,
R/O: 274, THIPATT V. RAJAGOLAHALLI,
POST: PENNAGARAM,
TQ: DHARMAPURI DIST:636 803 (TN)
2. SELVAM K.P.
S/O PALANSAMY K.C.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524, OLD NO.3/49,
NEW NO.3/274, GUNDALAPATTY VILLAGE,
OLD DHARMAPURI POST,
DHARMAPURI DIST: 636 803 (TN)
3. THE MANAGER,
SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.102 & 103 COUNTER PERMIT BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO SAJANAYVANI (HUBLI)
KARNATAKA - 580 020.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O SANNA HUCHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
BEARING NO.KA-36/A-7800,
R/O: ERA VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST; RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 06.07.2023 NOTICE TO R1, R2;
V/O DATED 25.11.2025, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR IN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
M.V.C.NO.27/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201275/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAREMMA
W/O POOJA @ BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SRI SRIDHAR
S/O POOJA @ BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. RANJITHA
D/O POOJA @ BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 08 YEARS,
4. POOJAMMA
D/O POOJA @ BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 05 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS UNDER THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
MAREMMA APPELLANT NO.1.
5. SRI BUDEPPA
S/O MAREPPA,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
6. SMT. YELLAMMA
W/O BUDEPPA,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O HEERA VILLAGE,
TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAIHCUR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KANAKARASU P.
S/O PERUMAL,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524,
R/O: 274, THIPATT V. RAJAGOLAHALLI,
POST: PENNAGARAM,
TQ: DHARMAPURI DIST:636 803 (TN)
2. SELVAM K.P.
S/O PALANSAMY K.C.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524, OLD NO.3/49,
NEW NO.3/274, GUNDALAPATTY VILLAGE,
OLD DHARMAPURI POST,
DHARMAPURI DIST: 636 701 (TN)
3. THE MANAGER,
SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.102 & 103 COUNTER PERMIT BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO SAJANAYVANI (HUBLI)
KARNATAKA - 580 020.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O SANNA HUCHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
BEARING NO.KA-36/A-7800,
R/O: ERA VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST; RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 06.07.2023 NOTICE TO R1, R2;
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR IN
M.V.C.NO.358/2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201305/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. EARAMMA
W/O BASAVARAJ
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SABAMMA
D/O BASAVARAJ
AGE: 8 YEARS, MINOR
3. BASAMMA
D/O BASAVARAJ
AGE: 5 YEARS, MINOR,
4. SRI KADAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOATHER,
APPELLANT NO.1 EARAMMA,
ALL ARE R/O DONDAMBALLI,
TQ: DEVADURGA,
NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANTS
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KANAKARASU P.
S/O PERUMAL,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524,
R/O: 274, THIPATT V. RAJAGOLAHALLI,
POST: PENNAGARAM,
TQ: DHARMAPURI DIST:636 803 (TN)
2. SELVAM K.P.
S/O PALANSAMY K.C.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524, OLD NO.3/49,
NEW NO.3/274, GUNDALAPATTY VILLAGE,
OLD DHARMAPURI POST,
DHARMAPURI DIST: 636 701 (TN)
3. THE MANAGER,
SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.102 & 103 COUNTER PERMIT BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO SAJANAYVANI (HUBLI)
KARNATAKA - 580 020.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O SANNA HUCHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
BEARING NO.KA-36/A-7800,
R/O: ERA VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST; RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 27.11.2023 NOTICE TO R1 and R2 DISPENSED
WITH)
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.399/2015 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.10,13,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO
RS.58,25,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST AND ETC.
IN M.F.A.NO.201306/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ERAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHA
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE WORK,
2. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHA
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WORD WORK,
3. SRI SANNABASAVA
S/O EARAPPA,
AGE: 7 YEARS, MINOR,
4. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O EARAPPA,
AGE: 5 YEARS, MINOR,
APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL FATHER
GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1 EARAPPA,
ALL R/O: AKALAKUMPI,
TQ: DEVADURGA NOW
R/O: SHAKTINAGAR, RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
AND:
1. SRI. KANAKARASU P.
S/O PERUMAL,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524,
R/O: 274, THIPATT V. RAJAGOLAHALLI,
POST: PENNAGARAM,
TQ: DHARMAPURI DIST:636 803 (TN)
2. SELVAM K.P.
S/O PALANSAMY K.C.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.TN-29/BA-9524, OLD NO.3/49,
NEW NO.3/274, GUNDALAPATTY VILLAGE,
OLD DHARMAPURI POST,
DHARMAPURI DIST: 636 701 (TN)
3. THE MANAGER,
SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.102 & 103 COUNTER PERMIT BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TO SAJANAYVANI (HUBLI)
KARNATAKA - 580 020.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA
S/O SANNA HUCHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX
BEARING NO.KA-36/A-7800,
R/O: ERA VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI,
DIST; RAICHUR - 584 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 24.11.2023 NOTICE TO R1 and R2 DISPENSED
WITH)
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
MFA No. 201276 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 201275 of 2019
MFA No. 201305 of 2019
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.400/2015 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.10,42,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO
RS.55,25,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST AND ETC.
THESE MFA'S, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
1. These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) have been filed by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 19.02.2019 passed by the
MACT, Raichur in MVC Nos.27/2016, 358/2015, 399/2015
and 400/2015 respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly
stated are that when the claimant-Sharif, deceased
Basavaraj, deceased Anjinamma, deceased Pooja @
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Bheemanna and others were proceeding in Tempo Trax
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-36-A-7800 (for short
'tempo') towards Bengaluru for attending coolie work and
on 04.01.2015 at 3:00 am, the said vehicle was punctured
near Kalambella, Chikkanahalli Village on Sira-Tumakur
NH-48 road and while removing the left tyre back wheel,
at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-29-BA-
9524 (for short 'lorry'), which was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the hind portion of
the tempo. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
deceased Pooja @ Bheemanna died at the spot, deceased
Anjinamma, deceased Basavaraj succumbed to the injuries
and claimant-Sharif and other inmates sustained injuries.
3. The claimants filed petitions under Section 166 of the
Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased
along with interest.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.2 and 3
appeared through counsel and filed written statements
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The
respondent Nos.1 and 4, despite service of notice, did not
appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded
the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and
award has partly allowed the claim petitions and held that
the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of
the drivers of the lorry as well as the tempo at the ratio of
75% and 25% respectively and awarded compensation
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the
insurer of both the vehicles to deposit their respective
share of compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by the
claimants.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the
following contentions:
NEGLIGENCE:
The accident has occurred due to the negligence of
driver of the lorry. The driver of the lorry came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed to the parked tempo.
Further, he contented that the tempo was punctured in the
highway. The driver of the tempo after taking all
precautionary measures to put indicator and blinkers on
the road, was changing the punctured tyre of the vehicle.
The road was a straight road. The driver of the lorry could
see the parking of the tempo from a long distance. Since
driver of the lorry was driving the same in a rash and
negligent manner, he has not made any efforts to stop the
lorry, dashed to the hind portion of the tempo. Due to the
impact, the accident has occurred. He further contented
that the tempo was insured and was having a valid
insurance policy. The Tribunal is not justified in holding
that the driver of the tempo has contributed to the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
accident to an extent of 25%. The said finding of the
Tribunal is unsustainable.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month by working in a construction
company. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the
income as merely as Rs.6,000/- per month.
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as
PW-5. There is 3 cm shortening of leg. The Tribunal
undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 20%,
contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant
suffered 33.2% disability to whole body.
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for
a period of 44 days. Even after discharge from the
hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular
work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged
about 35 years at the time of the accident and the
assessment of monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017
SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was self-
employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of
the established income towards 'future prospects' is
warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40
years. The said principle shall be applied to the present
case.
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra),
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of
estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the
claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under
the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was
aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and the
assessment of monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017
SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was self-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of
the established income towards 'future prospects' is
warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40
years. The said principle shall be applied to the present
case.
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra),
the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of
estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ
2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation
of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection
and consortium'.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was
aged about 18 years at the time of the accident and the
assessment of monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017
SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was self-
employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of
the established income towards 'future prospects' is
warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40
years. The said principle shall be applied to the present
case.
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra),
the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of
estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ
2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation
of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection
and consortium'.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel for
the claimants sought for allowing the appeals.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised the following counter-
contentions:
NEGLIGENCE:
The driver of the tempo had parked the vehicle on
the middle road of the road and removing the punctured
wheel. He was supposed to park on the side of the road.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Since it is a National Highway, the vehicles will be moving
at a high speed; inspite of his best effort, the driver of the
lorry was unable to control the vehicle and dashed to the
hind portion of the tempo. He further contended that
driver of the tempo was negligent in parking the tempo in
the middle of the road and changing the wheel without
even asking inmates to get down from the vehicle.
Therefore, Tribunal has rightly held that driver of the
tempo has also contributed to the accident to the extent of
25%.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to
lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of
income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
claimant notionally.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries
sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has
rightly assessed the whole body disability at 20%.
c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant and considering the age and avocation of the
claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant
interference.
a) In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has
correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Claimants are 6 in numbers. The Tribunal instead of
deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses has erred in deducting 1/5th.
c) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the
income of the deceased, they are not entitled for
compensation towards 'future prospects'.
d) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and considering the age and avocation of the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
a) In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has
correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established
the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for
compensation towards 'future prospects'.
c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
a) In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has
correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established
the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for
compensation towards 'future prospects'.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel
sought to dismiss the appeals.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
RE: NEGLIGENCE:
9. It is the case of the claimants that on 04.01.2015 at
about 03.00 a.m., the claimant-injured, deceased persons
and other villagers were inmates in the tempo bearing
No.KA-36-A-7800 and proceeding to Bengaluru to attend
coolie work and due to puncture, the vehicle was parked
near Chikkanahalli on Sira-Tumkur NH-48 for changing the
tyre. At that time, driver of the lorry bearing registration
No.TN-29-BA-9524 was driven in rash and negligent
manner with high speed and dashed to the tempo from
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
back side. Due to which some of the inmates have died
and some of them have been injured. The driver of the
tempo, who was changing the wheel died at the spot.
To prove the case, the claimants have examined 8
witnesses and marked 259 documents. Immediately, after
the accident, complainant has been lodged against the
driver of the lorry. The police after thorough investigation
have filed charge sheet; in respect of driver of tempo, the
charge sheet is filed only under the offences under Section
283 of IPC and in respect of driver of the lorry, the charge
sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections
304A, 338, 337, 283 and 279 of IPC.
PW1 to PW8 have categorically stated that accident
occurred due to the negligence of driver of the lorry. The
tempo was parked on the side of the highway to change
the punctured tyre. The driver of the tempo had taken all
precaution to put the indicator and the blinkers and he has
taken all possible care while parking the tempo. Therefore,
there is no justification for the respondent to contend that
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without
taking any safety measures. Since the accident occurred in
the highway and it was straight road, the driver of the
lorry could have noticed the parking of the tempo since
there was indicators and blinkers. As per the
panchanama, it goes to show that, lorry has hit the tempo
from the back side and dragged the vehicle where the
dead bodies and blood stains were located. It is very clear
from spot panchanama and IMV report that driver of the
lorry was driving the same in rash and negligent manner
and with a high speed without making any effort to control
the lorry dashed to the tempo. The accident occurred due
to the negligence of driver of the lorry alone. The Tribunal
even though has given a finding that driver of the tempo
has taken all precautionary measures while parking the
vehicle and no charge sheet has been filed against the
driver of the tempo for negligence, has erred in holding
that driver of the tempo has contributed to the accident to
the extent of 25%.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Therefore, in view of the above, we hold that the
driver of the lorry alone was negligent in causing the
accident. To that extent, the finding of the Tribunal in
respect of negligence is modified. The insurer of lorry is
liable to indemnify the owner of the tempo and pay entire
compensation to the claimants.
RE: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
IN MVC 27/2016 (claimant - Sharif)
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/-
per month. But he has not produced any documents to
substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof
of income, notional income has to be assessed. According
to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year
2015, notional income shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained
Type-II open fracture both bones of right leg and fracture
3 and 5 metatarsal right foot bones with PTRA right leg.
Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal
has rightly taken the whole body disability at 20%. The
claimant is aged about 19 years at the time of the accident
and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the
claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.345,600/-
(Rs.8,000*12*18*20%) on account of 'loss of future
income'.
The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant
must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3
months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000*3 months) under
the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for
more than 44 days in the hospital and subsequently
received further treatment. Due to the accident, the
claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone
surgery. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment
as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor,
we are inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from
Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and under the head of 'loss
of amenities' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs,35,000/-
Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and
reasonable.
Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following
compensation:
As awarded As awarded
by the by this
Compensation under Tribunal Court
different Heads
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 40,000 60,000
Medical expenses 120,000 120,000
Food, nourishment, 19,000 19,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 18,000 24,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 25,000 35,000
Loss of future income 259,200 345,600
Total 481,200 603,600
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN MVC 358/2015 (Deceased - Pooja @ Bheemanna)
11. In the absence of proof of income, the notional
income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
for accidents occurred in the year 2015, the notional
income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account
of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY
SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.11,200/-. Since claimants are 6 in numbers, it is
appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased
towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to
be taken as his contribution to the family, instead of 1/5th
deducted by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged about
35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier
applicable to his age group is '16'. Thus, the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.16,12,800/-
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(Rs.11,200*12*16*3/4) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of
estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of
'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE' (supra), each of the claimants are entitled
for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
'loss of consortium'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 16,12,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 240,000
Total 18,82,800
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN MVC 399/2015 (Deceased - Basavaraj)
12. In the absence of proof of income, the notional
income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
for accidents occurred in the year 2015, the notional
income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account
of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY
SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.11,200/-. Since claimant Nos.1 to 4 are dependents, it
is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and remaining
amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family.
The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '17'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.11,200*12*17*3/4) on account of
'loss of dependency'.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of
estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of
'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE' (supra), each of the claimant Nos.1 to 4 are
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head
of 'loss of consortium'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 17,13,600
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 160,000
Total 19,03,600
IN MVC 400/2015 (Deceased - Anjinamma)
13. In the absence of proof of income, the notional
income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
for accidents occurred in the year 2015, the notional
income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account
of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY
SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.11,200/-. Since claimant Nos.1 to 4 are dependents, it
is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and remaining
amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family.
The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is '18'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.11,200*12*18*3/4) on account of
'loss of dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of
estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE' (supra), each of the claimant Nos.1 to 4 are
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head
of 'loss of consortium'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 18,14,400
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 160,000
Total 20,04,400
14. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeals are allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimant in MVC 27/2016 is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.603,600/-.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7453-DB
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
d) The claimant in MVC 358/2015 is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.18,82,800/-
e) The claimant in MVC 399/2015 is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.19,03,600/-
f) The claimant in MVC 400/2015 is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.20,04,400/-
g) The Insurance Company (insurer of lorry) is directed
to deposit the entire compensation amount along
with interest at 6% p.a. in all the cases from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the date of
realization, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
h) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount
shall be made in accordance with the terms of the
award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
DM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
