Karnataka High Court
Malabai And Ors vs Samson And Anr on 10 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
MFA No. 202135 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202135 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 200016 OF 2019
IN MFA NO.202135/2018 :
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE, NEAR NEW BUS STAND,
OPP: GURUNANAK GATE, BIDAR.
Digitally signed
by RAMESH ...APPELLANT
MATHAPATI
Location:
HIGH COURT (BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. MALABAI W/O. LATE KISHAN
AGE : 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. PAPPU S/O. LATE KISHAN,
AGE: 13 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT (MINOR),
3. LALITA D/O. LATE KISHAN,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
MFA No. 202135 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
OCC: STUDENT (MINOR),
4. DYNESHWAR
S/O. LATE KISHAN,
AGE: 9 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT (MINOR),
CLAIMANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1.
5. MUKTABAI W/O. NARAYAN,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. NARAYAN S/O. REDA,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
7. KAVITA D/O. NARAYAN,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
ALL R/O: GHAM THANDA, JAMAGI,
TQ: AURAD "B",
NOW AT OLD ADARSH COLONY,
BEHIND KEB, BIDAR - 585 401.
8. SAMSON S/O. DEVIDAS,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.HIPPALGOAN,
TQ & DIST : BIDAR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5,
R6 & R7;
R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS U/G OF R1;
NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 26.06.2018 IN MVC NO.187/2016 PASSED BY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
MFA No. 202135 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AND PRL. MACT,
BIDAR BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA CROB NO.200016/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. MALABAI
W/O. LATE KISHAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. PAPPU
S/O. LATE KISHAN,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. LALITHA
D/O. LATE KISHAN,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
4. DYNESHWAR
S/O. LATE KISHAN,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
CLAIMANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
AND UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF
THEIR MOTHER MALABAI
5. MUKTABAI
W/O. NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. NARAYAN S/O. REDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
MFA No. 202135 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
7. KAVITHA D/O. NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
ALL R/O: GHAM THANDA,
JAMAGI, TQ: AURAD "B",
NOW AT OLD ADARSH COLONY,
BEHIND KEB, BIDAR.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAMSON
S/O. DEVIDAS,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. HIPPALGOAN,
TQ & DIST. BIDAR - 585 401.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE, NEAR NEW BUS STAND,
OPP: GURUNANAK GATE, BIDAR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.187/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL M.A.C.T,
BIDAR, AND ALLOW THE PRESENT CROSS APPEAL BY
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
MFA No. 202135 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM
RS.13,30,064/- TO RS. 14,00,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE
APPELLANTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL AND CROB COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 26.06.2018
passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and Principal
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar, (for short, 'tribunal') in
MVC no.187/2016, this appeal and cross-objection are filed by
insurer as well as claimants.
2. Sri SS Aspalli, learned counsel submitted, appeal
was by insurer challenging award on quantum. It was
submitted as per claimants on 15.01.2016 - Kishan was driver
of lorry no.KA-39/3738 loaded with sugarcane, when driver of
Tractor-Trailer no.KA-38/T-2659/2660 drove it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against lorry, causing accident.
In said accident, Kishan sustained fatal injuries and died.
Claiming compensation, his wife, children, parents and un-
married sister filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of tractor-trailer.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. Despite notice, owner did not appear and was
placed ex-parte. Insurer opposed claim petition, denying entire
claim petition averments and also alleging violation of terms
and conditions of policy by insured.
4. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 was examined as PW-1 and
Exs.P-1 to 9 got marked. Respondents did not lead any
evidence.
5. On consideration, tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor-Tailor by its driver
leading to death of Kishan, claimants being entitled for
compensation assessed by it as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Towards loss of dependency and Rs.12,80,064/-
future income
2 Towards consortium to 1st petitioner Rs.10,000/-
3 Petitioners no.2 to 4 due to death of Rs.10,000/-
their father
4 Petitioners no.5 and 6 due to death Rs.10,000/-
of their son
5 Petitioner no.7 due to death of her Rs.10,000/-
brother
6 Towards transportation of dead body Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.13,30,064/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
6. Dissatisfied with same, these appeals were filed by
claimants as well as insurer.
7. It was submitted, taking note of nature of damages
sustained by both vehicles, negligence is on part of drivers of
both vehicles. Therefore, there ought to have been
apportionment of negligence of drivers of both vehicles. Merely
on ground that, police had charge sheeted only driver of
Tractor-Trailer, tribunal was not justified in fastening entire
liability on insurer. It was further submitted, though claimants
stated that deceased Kishor was working as a driver with
monthly income of Rs.12,000/- with Bhatta of Rs.250/- per
day, they failed to substantiate same with specific material and
tribunal considered his income at Rs.10,000/- p.m., which was
higher than income prescribed for year 2016 at Rs.8,750/-. On
said ground sought for reduction.
8. On other hand, Sri Sandeepkumar Vijay Patil,
learned counsel for claimants opposed insurers appeal and
sought enhancement. It was submitted FIR, compliant, Spot
Panchanama and charge sheet at Exs.P-1 to 7 implicated driver
of Tractor-Trailer as negligent in causing accident. There was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
no evidence led by insurer, to support allegations of negligence
against driver of Tractor-Trailer. Merely on ground of damages
sustained by Lorry, it cannot be implied that driver of Lorry was
negligent.
9. On quantum, it was submitted that deceased was
working as driver, earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. as salary and
Rs.250/- as daily bhatta. To substantiate his avocation,
claimants had produced driving license of deceased at Ex.P-8.
Same would indicate that he had driving license to driver LMV
with transport endorsement and PSV Bus. Therefore,
determination of monthly income notionally was not justified. It
was further submitted, tribunal erred in not adding future
prospects. It was also submitted that claimants were wife,
three children, parents and unmarried sister. Despite same,
deduction towards personal expenses at 1/3rd is on higher side.
It was submitted, award of compensation under other heads
was also not as per decision in case of National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1 and sought
for enhancement.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
10. Heard counsel and perused judgment and award
and certificate copy of deposit and exhibits made available for
perusal by learned counsel for appellant.
11. In view of above, points that would arise for
consideration are
i) Whether tribunal was justified in holding driver of
insured vehicle solely negligent in causing accident?
ii) Whether assessment of compensation by tribunal
calls for modification?
Point no.1:
12. In order to establish actionable appeal against
insurer, claimants relied upon police investigation records,
namely FIR, Complaint, Spot Panchanama and Charge Sheet
marked as Exs.P-1 to 3 and 7. Same would reveal that after
investigation police had filed Charge Sheet only against driver
of Tractor-Trailer. Though, Ex.P-6 (Motor Vehicle Inspector's
Report) would substantiate damages sustained to front side of
Lorry, it also sustained damages to front and right side of
Tractor Engine and Trailer. Spot Panchanama would reveal that
Lorry was moving from South to North, while Tractor-Trailer
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
was moving from North to South. Accident occurred on 18 ft.
wide road with 5 ft. kachha road and accident occurred at
distance of 6 ft. from Western edge of road. This would indicate
that driver of Tractor-Trailer had taken it on wrong side by 3 ft.
Moreover, insurer did not lead any evidence. Even, result of
criminal prosecution of driver of Tractor Trailer is not disclosed.
Therefore, apportionment of negligence by tribunal only against
driver of Tractor-Trailer would be fully justified. Hence, point
no.1 is answered in affirmative.
Point no.2:
13. Insofar as, monthly income, though claimants
stated that Kishor was working as driver and earning
Rs.12,000/- p.m. with Rs.250/- daily bhata, same was not
substantiated. But, by production of driving license as PW-8
avocation is established. As rightly submitted, Ex.P-8 would
indicate that deceased had held license for driving LMV with
transport endorsement and PSV Bus. Under similar
circumstances, this Court in MFA no.201173/2021 assessed
income of driver of Lorry with transport endorsement and PSV
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
Bus at Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, monthly income of deceased is
considered at Rs.20,000/-.
14. Claimants are wife, three children, parents and
unmarried sister of deceased. Even, if unmarried sister is
excluded from dependency as she would be dependent on her
father, number of dependents is six. As per decision in Pranay
Sethi (supra), 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal
expenses. Deceased was aged 32 years of age and self
employed. Therefore, 40% has to be added towards future
prospects. Multiplier applicable would be 16. Therefore,
compensation towards loss of dependency would be:
Rs.40,32,000/- ([(Rs.20,000/- + 40% )- ¼] x 12 x 16).
15. Apart from above, claimants would be entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal, filial and parental
consortium i.e., total of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 6).
16. Apart from above, claimants would be entitled for
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate. Thus, compensation under conventional heads
would be Rs.2,70,000/-. As per decision in Pranay Sethi
(supra), 10% escalation has to be added to amount under
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
conventional heads, every three years. Since, six years has
elapsed after said decision, 20% has to be added. Same would
be Rs.54,000/-. Thus, total award would be Rs.43,56,000/-, as
follows:
Heads of compensation Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.40,32,000/-
Conventional heads Rs.2,70,000/-
Escalation (20%) Rs.54,000/-
Total Rs.43,56,000/-
17. Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative.
Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. MFA no.202135/2018 filed by insurer is
dismissed. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for disbursal.
ii. MFA Crob no.200016/2019 filed by claimants is
allowed in part. Judgment and award dated
26.06.2018 passed by Principal District and
Sessions Judge and Principal Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bidar, in MVC no.187/2016 is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
modified. Compensation is enhanced to
Rs.43,56,000/- as against Rs.13,30,064/-
awarded by tribunal with interest at 6% p.a.
from date of claim petition till deposit.
iii. Insurer to deposit said compensation within six
weeks.
iv. On deposit, claimant no.1-wife is held entitled
for 20% of award amount and each of her child
for 15% each.
v. Claimant no.5-mother is entitled for 20% and
claimant no.6-father is entitled for remaining
15% of award amount.
vi. Entire award amount apportioned in favour of
children to be kept in fixed deposit for a period
of 5 years with liberty to them to withdraw said
amount, in case it is needed for their higher
education or marriage purposes.
vii. 25% of apportionment in favour of wife and
mother, i.e., claimants no.1 and 5 respectively
is ordered to be released with remaining
amount to be kept in deposit for 3 years.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3806
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200016 of 2019
HC-KAR
viii. Apportionment of 15% in favour of claimant
no.6-father is ordered to be released.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN/NJ/AV
