Karnataka High Court
Neelamma And Ors vs Udaykumar And Anr on 7 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3679
MFA No. 200513 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200513 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O LATE GOLLALAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. KALLAVVA KORAVAR
W/O HANAMANTARAYA,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
3. HANAMANTARAYA
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI ALL R/O: MAGANGERA VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TQ: JEWARGI,
KARNATAKA DIST: KALABURAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT VILLAGE KARDAL,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY M/S. TABASSUM SULTANA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3679
MFA No. 200513 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. UDAYKUMAR
S/O MANIKAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DUBAI COLONY,
KALABURAGI - 585 104.
2. THE LEGAL MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
BLOCK NO.VIII,
NEAR S.V. PATEL CHOWK,
ASIAN PLAZA COMPLEX,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT AT CHITTAPUR IN MVC NO.1242/2019 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3679
MFA No. 200513 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 29.09.2022
passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chittapur (for short,
'tribunal') in MVC no.1242/2019, this appeal is filed.
2. Miss Tabassum Sultana, learned counsel submitted
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It
was submitted, on 02.04.2015, when Gollalappa was walking
by side of Shahapur-Surpur road, at 10:30 p.m., driver of car
no.KA-32/N-0860 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against Gollalappa, causing accident. Due to severity of
injuries sustained, Gollalappa died on spot. Alleging loss of
dependency on account of untimely death, his wife and parents
filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act
against owner and insurer of offending car.
3. On contest, owner did not appear and was placed
ex-parte while insurer filed objections, denying negligence on
part of car driver and alleging that accident occurred due to
negligence of deceased, even age, occupation and income of
deceased was also disputed. Based on pleadings, tribunal
framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 examined
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3679
HC-KAR
as PW.1. Exs.P.1 to P.9 were got marked. Insurer examined its
official as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R6.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured car by its
driver leading to death of Gollalappa and claimants were
entitled for compensation from insurer assessed as follows :-
1. Loss of dependency `16,12,872/-
2. Loss of estate `15,000/-
3. Towards spousal consortium (for petitioner `40,000/-
no.1)
4. Towards parental consortium (for petitioner `2,22,300/-
no.2 and 3)
5. Transportation of dead body and funeral `15,000/-
expenses
Total `17,62,872/-
Rounded off to `17,63,000/-
Dissatisfied with same, claimants are in appeal.
5. Though claimants had stated that Gollalappa was
aged 35 years old, working as JCB operator and earning
`20,000/- per month as salary + `500/- per day as bhata,
tribunal assessed monthly income at `8,000/-, which was on
lower side. It was submitted, compensation awarded under
other heads were also inadequate and sought enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3679
HC-KAR
6. On other hand, Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty,
learned counsel for respondent-insurer opposed appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
8. From above and since only claimants are in appeal
for enhancement of compensation, while insurer has accepted
award, point that would require consideration is :
"Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought for ?"
Same is answered partly in affirmative, for following reasons :
9. Insofar as monthly income though claimants stated
that deceased Gollalappa was working as JCB operator earning
more than `20,000/- per month, same was not substantiated
with any specific evidence. Neither his employer nor his driving
licence in respect of JCB or bank pass book etc. to substantiate
his income. In absence, tribunal would be justified in assessing
monthly income notionally. Notional income for year 2015 i.e.,
date of accident as adopted by KSLSA for settlement of cases
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3679
HC-KAR
before Lok-adalat is `8,000/-. Therefore, there would be no
scope for variation. Taking note of fact that deceased was 24
years of age and self employed while claimants are wife and
parents, tribunal rightly added 40% towards future prospects
and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied
multiplier of '18', to arrive at total amount of `16,12,872/-
towards loss of dependency. Apart from above, claimant
awarded `15,000/- towards loss of estate and `15,000/-
towards funeral expenses. Tribunal also awarded `40,000/-
towards spousal consortium and parental consortium
respectively. However, tribunal did not add 10% escalation for
every three years as per decision of Hon'ble Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Ors.1.Since more than six years have elapsed after decision of
Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 20% has to be added to award
under conventional heads. Total compensation towards
conventional heads is `1,50,000/-, 20% of same would be
`30,000/-. Thus, point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above. Consequently, following :
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3679
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award
dated 29.09.2022 passed in MVC
no.1242/2019 by Court of Senior Civil Judge
and MACT, Chittapur is modified, claimants are
held entitled for further amount of `30,000/-
with interest at rate opf 6% per annum from
date of claim petition till realization.
ii. Respondent is held liable to pay same and is
directed to deposit it before Tribunal within six
weeks.
iii. On deposit, same to be released to claimants.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
