[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Moulan Bee And Ors vs Upendra And Ors on 17 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7843
MFA No. 200386 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200386 OF 2025 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MOULAN BEE W/O LATE DOULASAB @ DAVAL SAB,
AGE 28 YEARS,
2. SYAD BEE D/O LATE DOULASAB @ DAVAL SAB,
AGE 9 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,
3. MARAF S/O LATE DOULASAB @ DAVALSAB,
AGE 8 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,
Digitally 4. SYED BASHA S/O LATE DOULASAB @ DAVALASAB,
signed by AGE 7 YEARS,
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
5. M D FARAN @ PARAN D/O LATE DOULASAB
Location:
HIGH COURT @ DAVALSAB,
OF AGE 5 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
THE CLAIMANT NO.2 TO 5 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER U/G MOULAN BEE
CLAIMANT NO. 1.
6. CHAND BEE W/O RAJASAB,
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7843
MFA No. 200386 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. RAJASAB S/O JAMSHER ALI,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC NIL.
ALL ARE R/O KADLUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST RAICHUR-584101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UPENDRA S/O URUKUNDAPPA,
AGE 26 YEARS, OCC DRIVER OF MAHINDRA
TUV-300 CAR REGN. NO.KA-02/MM-4035,
R/O H.NO.4-4-196/1B, RB ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR,
ASHOKNAGAR, RAICHUR 584 101
(DL NO.KA36/20200002721)
2. DAVALURI SRINIVAS RAO S/O KANAKA DAS,
AGE MAJOR, OCC OWNER OF MAHINDRA TUV300
CAR REGN. NO.KA-02/MM-4035,
R/O BESIDE CHURCH, RAMAKISHORA COLONY,
WARD NO.19 SINDHANUR, DIST RAICHUR-584101
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INS CO. LTD.,
SITUATED AT PLOT NO.3, TS NO.52, WARD NO.16,
1ST FLOOR, SPL COMPLEX, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
ROYAL CIRCLE, C7, BALLARI -583 101
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R3
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
ALLOW THE CLAM PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
AND AWARD DATE 01.02.2024 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, RAICHUR IN MVC
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7843
MFA No. 200386 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.406/2021 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the
Judgment and award dated 01.02.2024 passed in MVC
No.406/2021 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge
and MACT, Raichur (for short 'the tribunal') seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
2. One Daulasab @ Davalsab S/o. Raju Sab met with
accident and succumbed to the injuries. His wife and children
filed claim petition before the tribunal seeking compensation
of Rs.73,50,000/- along with interest. The tribunal after
considering the entire evidence on record, awarded a sum of
Rs.35,55,840/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7843
HC-KAR
claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
3. In the present appeal it is contended that, the
deceased Doulasab was working as a mason and earning a
sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, but he tribunal has erred in
taking his notional income at Rs.14,250/-. Further it is also
contended that, the amounts awarded under other heads are
meager and requested for enhancement of the
compensation.
4. The deceased Doulasab was aged 28 years and
the multiplier is '17'. Learned counsel for the claimants filed
the salary certificate of deceased Doulasab issued by a
Class-I Contractor and he deposed before the Court that, the
deceased Doulasab was working as a Mason under him since
one year and 11 months prior to the death and he was
paying in a sum of Rs.21,000/- per month. He also issued a
certificate to that effect. But the counsel for the respondent
opposed the same on the ground that, the said certificate is
not supported by any relevant Register maintained by the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7843
HC-KAR
Class-I Contractor. The trial Court without relying upon the
evidence of P.W.2, has taken the notional income of the
deceased Doulasab at Rs.14,250/- per month as he met with
accident in the year 2021. Admittedly, he was a Mason,
therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take his income at
Rs.16,000/- per month. Further he is also entitled for 40% of
the income towards future prospects and 1/4th is to be
deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the loss of
dependency is as under:
Rs.16,000/- + 40% X 12 X 17 X 3/4th = Rs.34,27,200/-
5. The claimant No.1 is the wife. She is entitled for
Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium. Claimant Nos.2 to
5 are children and each of them are entitled for a sum of
Rs.44,000/- towards parental consortium and claimant Nos.6
and 7 are parents of the deceased and each of them are
entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards filial consortium.
They are also entitled for a sum for a sum of Rs.33,000/-
towards conventional heads as per the citation reported in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7843
HC-KAR
in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hence, the claimants are entitled
to total compensation as under:
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount
1 Loss of dependency Rs.34,27,200/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.3,08,000/-
3 Conventional heads Rs.33,000/-
Total Rs.37,68,200/-
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance company
submits that, the compensation amount awarded by the
tribunal has been deposited before the tribunal along with
interest.
7. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.37,68,200/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization, as against
Rs.35,55,840/- awarded by the tribunal;
(iii) The respondent No.3-Insurance
company is directed to deposit the enhanced
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7843
HC-KAR
compensation of Rs.2,12,360/- along with interest
within one month from the date of this order;
(iv) On such deposit, the claimant No.1-wife
is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along
with interest accrued on it;
(v) The claimants are not entitled for the
interest for the delayed period of 192 days in filing
the appeal.
sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
SVH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77
