Karnataka High Court

Smt. Iramma And Ors vs Mahantesh And Anr on 5 February, 2025

Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                              -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB
                                                     MFA No. 203470 of 2024




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                           PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                                             AND
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203470 OF 2024 (MV-D)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SMT. IRAMMA
                        W/O BUKKANNA @ HUVANNA PUJARI @ BISANAL,
                        AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK,

                   2.   PARASHURAM
                        S/O BUKKANNA @ HUVANNA PUJARI @ BISANAL,
                        AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

                   3.   HANAMANT
                        S/O BUKKANNA @ HUVANNA PUJARI @ BISANAL,
                        AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed
by
LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH
                        ALL ARE R/O KANAKADAS NAGAR, SINDAGI,
COURT OF                TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
KARNATAKA

                                                                 ...APPELLANTS

                   (BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   MAHANTESH S/O BASAPPA MUGALE,
                        AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                        R/O BIRADI, TQ. RAIBAG,
                        DIST. BELAGAVI-591 217.
                                -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB
                                     MFA No. 203470 of 2024




2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER,
     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     MAHANT SQUARE,
     ATAL BIHARI VAJAPAYEE ROAD,
     NEAR INDI BUS STOP AT APMC, 1ST GATE,
     INDI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2;
 V/O DTD. 26.11.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED IN MVC
NO.421/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.X, SINDAGI AT SINDAGI AND ALLOW THIS
APPEAL TO GRANT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY
RS.35,68,780/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS
BEFORE THIS COURT; ORDER FOR COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
          AND
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Though the matter is slated for Admission, with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties,

it is taken up for final disposal.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in

MVC No.421/2023, dated 01.04.2024 passed by the

learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Member, MACT-X,

Sindagi, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal,

seeking intervention in respect of the quantum of

compensation.

3. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of

this appeal are that, on 09.03.2023, one Hoovanna @

Bukaray was riding his Scooty bearing No.KA-28/EK-2735

with his two grand children as pillion riders on Vijayapura-

Kalabugari National Highway. At about 1.30 p.m., a

Cruiser Jeep bearing No.KA-23/N-0903 came from behind

and dashed to the scooty, resulting in the accident, due to

which, the said Hoovanna and the pillion riding children

sustained injuries and they were shifted to the hospital.

Hoovanna died while under treatment. Hence, the wife and

children of Hoovanna approached the Tribunal in MVC

No.421/2023, seeking compensation from the owner and

insurer of the cruiser jeep. They contended that deceased

NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB

Hoovanna was a retired KEB employee, earning about

Rs.55,000/- as pension and due to his death, the

petitioners have lost their bread earner and therefore,

they are entitled for compensation.

4. The petition was opposed by the respondents.

Respondent No.1 denied his negligence, but, however,

contended that his vehicle was insured with respondent

No.2-Insurance Company and as such, the liability, if any,

may be fastened upon the insurer.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company though

contended that there were violations of the terms and

conditions of the policy and the compensation claimed is

highly exorbitant ant imaginary, did not adduce any

evidence, but, admitted the insurance coverage.

6. After framing appropriate issues, evidence was

led by the petitioners and among other documents,

Pension Certificate of the deceased was marked as Ex.P9,

which depicted that the deceased was drawing a pension

of Rs.40,573/- per month. The Tribunal, after hearing both

NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB

the sides, held that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being major

sons of the deceased and petitioner No.1 are not the

dependents and as such, deducted 50% of the income of

the deceased towards his personal expenses and

calculated the loss of dependency. Adding the

compensation under the conventional heads, a sum of

Rs.13,31,220/- was awarded to the petitioners.

7. In this appeal, notice to respondent No.1-the

insured was dispensed with and respondent No.2 - insurer

has appeared through its counsel.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would submit that the deduction of 50% towards the

personal expenses of the deceased Hoovanna is improper,

inasmuch as the petitioners were the dependents. Even

though petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are major sons, the

petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and therefore,

NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla

Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and Another1 has not been properly followed by the

Tribunal. He submits that except his grievance about the

loss of dependency, he does not have any other grievance

to make.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 would submit that the Tribunal has

appreciated the evidence available on record and there

being no iota of evidence about the dependency of

petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the Tribunal is justified in

considering personal expenses at 50%.

11. We have perused the impugned judgment and

the material available on record.

12. The fact that deceased Hoovanna died in the

road traffic accident involving the vehicle owned by

respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 is not in

dispute. The liability of respondent No.2 is also not in

(2009) 6 SCC 121

NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB

dispute. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was aged

65 years and was drawing a pension of Rs.40,573/- as per

Ex.P9.

13. It is worth to note that the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma supra in

paragraphs 30 to 32 elaborately lays down that where the

family of a bachelor is large and dependent on the income

of the deceased, the deduction may be restricted to 1/3rd.

In other words, the deduction towards personal expenses

has to be assessed as a question of fact. In the case on

hand, the deceased has left behind him, his wife and two

children. The Tribunal observed that there is no evidence

either to show that the two children are dependent or they

are not dependent. In that view, it can safely be said that

the deceased Hoovanna being the eldest member of the

family was looking after the welfare of his wife and was

also contributing to the family, including his children.

Hence, we find that the conclusions reached by the

Tribunal are not sustainable. The deductions towards the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB

personal expenses of the deceased should have been

1/3rd. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as:

Rs.40,573 x 12 x 5 x 2/3rd = Rs,16,22,920/-. To this

extent, there shall be modification in the quantum of the

compensation amount.

14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under the conventional heads to the tune of Rs.1,14,000/-

is not disputed. Hence, the same do not require any

indulgence by this Court.

15. The Tribunal, in the operative portion of the

judgment has ordered 50% of the amount allotted to

petitioner No.1 to be released and remaining 25% to be

kept in Fixed Deposit. It has not ordered as to who is

entitled for balance 25%. It seems, the Tribunal intended

that 25% to be paid to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 together.

16. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a total

sum of Rs.17,36,920/- instead of Rs.13,31,220/- along

with interest. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed

in part. Hence, the following:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:820-DB

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by

the Tribunal stands modified.

iii) The appellants are entitled for an additional

sum of Rs.4,05,700/- (Rs.17,36,920/- less

Rs.13,31,220/-) along with interest at 6% p.a.

form the date of petition till its realization.

iv) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the enhanced compensation

amount along with interest within a period of

six weeks from the date of this judgment.