Karnataka High Court
Sharnappa And Ors vs Mohd Nawaz And Anr on 11 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3848
MFA No. 201580 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201580 OF 2024 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SHARNAPPA
S/O TUKARAM @ TUKKAPPA,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
2. VIJAY
S/O TUKARAM @ TUKKAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
3. GUNDAPPA
S/O TUKARAM @ TUKKAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH OCC: AGRICULTURE,
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH 4. KARTIK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O GUNDAPPA,
AGED: 14 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
5. ASHWIN
S/O GUNDAPPA,
AGED 11 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
THE APPELLANT NO.4 TO 5 ARE MINORS
U/G OF NATURAL FATHER / NEXT FRIEND,
THE APPELLANT NO.1 SHARANAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3848
MFA No. 201580 of 2024
HC-KAR
ALL ARE RESIDENT H.NO.3/31, 571,
JANWADA, BIDAR - 585 402.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHD. NAWAZ
S/O MOHD. MOIZUDDIN,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO.1085/1 NEAR MASJID ROAD,
ALIAMBER, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
2. ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, A.K. AISAN GRAND,
OPP: GESCOM OFFICE, STATION ROAD,
GULBARGA, KARNATAKA 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2023 IN
M.V.C.NO.439/2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.,
AT BIDAR, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION, 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:3848
MFA No. 201580 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 19.10.2023
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM & Addl. MACT,
Bidar, in MVC no.439/2022, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Ravi B.Patil, learned counsel submitted appeal
was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was
submitted on 06.01.2022, Bandemma W/o Tukaram was
returning home after attending agricultural work along with
claimants no.1 and 3. When they were near Janwada village
Bridge at 6.00 p.m., rider of motorcycle no.KA-38/Y-1067, rode
it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Bandemma
causing accident. In said accident, she sustained grievous
injuries and was admitted to hospital, where she succumbed
during treatment. Alleging loss of dependency on account of
untimely death, her children and grand-children filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner
and insurer of motorcycle.
3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds including denying negligence and violation of terms
and conditions of policy, tribunal framed issues and recorded
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3848
HC-KAR
evidence. Claimant no.1 examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P-1 to P-15. Respondents did not lead any
evidence.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle
by its rider leading to death of Bandemma and claimants being
entitled for compensation from insurer as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Loss of dependency Rs.7,20,036/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.44,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
4 Transportation of dead body and Rs.16,500/-
funeral expenses
Total Rs.7,97,036/-
5. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal.
6. It was firstly submitted, in claim petition claimants
had stated that deceased Bandemma was 52 years of age
working as coolie and earning Rs.18,000/- per month.
However, tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs.10,000/-
which was on lower side. It was further submitted that tribunal
erred in not adding future prospects to monthly income. It was
submitted though victim was shifted to BRIMS Hospital, Bidar
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3848
HC-KAR
and thereafter to Gandhi Hospital, Secundarabad and she died
during treatment, there was no award of any amount towards
conveyance and medical expenses. Therefore, sought for
enhancement.
7. On other hand, Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty,
learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer, opposed appeal. It
was submitted that tribunal had taken note of facts and
circumstances of case and awarded compensation under
separate heads. Same was adequate and did not call
enhancement.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment
and award.
9. From above and since claimants are in appeal, only
point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought for?"
10. Though claimants stated that deceased was working
as agricultural coolie and earning Rs.18,000/- per month, same
was not substantiated with specific evidence. In absence, same
has to be assessed notionally. But notional income for year
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3848
HC-KAR
2022 being Rs.14,750/- as adopted by Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath,
tribunal was not justified in taking Rs.10,000/- per month.
Same has to be considered at Rs.14,750/- per month.
11. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others1, claimants would be entitled for addition of future
prospects to monthly income of deceased. Taking note of self-
employed occupation and age of deceased at 59 years, there
has to be addition of 10% towards future prospects. Since
deceased was married and claimants no.1 to 3 are children,
deduction towards personal expenses has to be at 1/3rd.
Tribunal adopted correct multiplier of 9. Thus, loss of
dependency has to be re-computed as follows:
(Rs.14,750/- + 10%) - 1/3rd x 12 x 9 = Rs.11,68,198/-
12. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram
Alias Chuhru Ram and Others2, claimants no.1 to 3 each
AIR 2017 SC 5157
(2018) 18 SCC 130
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3848
HC-KAR
would be entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-.
Claimants no.4 and 5 being grand-children would not be
entitled for same. Apart from above, claimants would be
entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses.
13. Further as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 10% has to be added for every
three years under conventional heads. Since more than six
years have lapsed after said decision, 20% has to be added
towards escalation which would be Rs.30,000/-.
14. As per decision of this Court in case of Shriram
General Insurance Company Limited, Rajasthan v.
Smt.Laxmi and others3, claimants would be entitled for
interest at 6% per annum on enhanced compensation from
date of petition till date of deposit.
15. Thus, claimants would be entitled for total
compensation of Rs.13,48,198/- as follows:
2018 (4) AKR 808
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3848
HC-KAR
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Loss of dependency Rs.11,68,198/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4 Transportation of dead body and Rs.15,000/-
funeral expenses
5 Towards escalation (20% of Rs.30,000/-
1,50,000)
Total Rs.13,48,198/-
16. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award
dated 19.10.2023 passed by Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM & Addl. MACT, Bidar, in
MVC no.439/2022 is modified.
ii. Claimants are held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.13,48,198/- as against
Rs.7,97,036/- awarded by Tribunal, with
interest at 6% per annum on enhanced
compensation from date of claim petition till
deposit.
iii. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before
Tribunal within six weeks.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3848
HC-KAR
iv. On deposit, conditions imposed by tribunal for
apportionment, deposit and release of
compensation would apply as per award of
tribunal to enhanced compensation
proportionately.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
MSR
