Karnataka High Court

Abdul Samad vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 June, 2025

                                         -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:18881
                                                   MFA No. 803 of 2017


              HC-KAR




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                       BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
             MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2017 (MV-D)
             BETWEEN:

             ABDUL SAMAD
             S/O LATE ABDUL KHADER,
             AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
             R/O VIDYADAYINI SCHOOL,
             IDYA, SURATKAL,
             MANGALORE TALUK 575014.
                                                            ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R, ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.    THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                   1ST FLOOR, ENJAYS COMPLEX,
                   OPP NETHRAVATHI BUILDING,
                   BALMATTA, MANGALORE - 575 002
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

Digitally    2.    JAGANNATH S
signed by          S/O VASU POOJARY,
BHARATHI S         AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                   R/O GANESH NILAYA,
Location:          NETHRAVATHI ROAD,
HIGH               THUMBE, BANTWAL 574143.
COURT OF                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA    (BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
              NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 27.11.2023)
                  THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
             JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC
             NO.174/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T AND III ADDITIONAL
             SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
             CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
             OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
                                              -2-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:18881
                                                        MFA No. 803 of 2017


    HC-KAR



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

CORAM:           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 challenging the

judgment and award dated 16.03.2016 passed in

MVC.No.174/2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and

III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K2 seeking for

enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading in the

present appeal are that on 09.09.2010 when the deceased was

crossing the road, a motorcycle being driven by its driver in

rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, causing the

accident in question wherein she sustained grievous injuries

and was shifted to the hospital. The deceased succumbed to

Hereinafter referred as to 'Act'

Hereinafter referred as to 'Tribunal'

NC: 2025:KHC:18881

HC-KAR

her injuries on 04.10.2010. Claiming compensation for death of

the deceased the claimant being son of the deceased filed the

claim petition arraying the owner and insurer of the offending

motorcycle as respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Tribunal by its

judgment and award dated 16.03.2016 partly allowed the claim

petition and awarded a total compensation of `4,02,647/-

together with interest at 6% per annum and held that

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation awarded. Respondent No.2 - insurer was

directed to deposit the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved

the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for

enhancement of compensation.

4. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. BR

Guruprasad, appearing for the appellant and learned counsel

Sri. EI. Sanmathi, appearing for respondent No.1 - insurer.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the

Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss

of dependency. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE

NC: 2025:KHC:18881

HC-KAR

COMPANY LIMITED V/S BIRENDER AND ORS3 and the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SEEMA

RANI AND ORS V/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

AND ORS4, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the

loss of dependency ought to have been awarded. Learned

counsel further contends that the compensation on other heads

has not been awarded which is required to be awarded. Hence,

he seeks for enhancement of compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 -

insurer justifies the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have

been considered and the material on record, including the

records of the Tribunal, have been perused.

8. The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and

liability are not under challenge and have attained finality.

Hence, the only aspect adjudicated in the present appeal is with

regard to the enhancement of compensation awarded.

'AIR 2020 SC 434'

'2025 SCC Online SC 283'

NC: 2025:KHC:18881

HC-KAR

9. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was aged 62

yeas and was looking after the entire home affairs. The

Tribunal relying upon various judgments held that the claimant

being a major son of the deceased was not entitled for

compensation on the heads of loss of dependency.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED3 while

considering a similar question with regard to the compensation

payable to the major dependents held as follows:

"15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years."

(emphasis supplied)

NC: 2025:KHC:18881

HC-KAR

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SEEMA

RANI AND ORS4 noticing it's earlier judgment in the case of

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED3 awarded

compensation to a married daughter.

12. Having regard to the settled position of law as

noticed above, the finding recorded by the Tribunal denying the

compensation on the head of loss of dependency is erroneous

and liable to be interfered.

13. PW.1 in his testimony has deposed that the

deceased was looking after their home and was living with him.

He further deposed that he was carrying on business of selling

bags, having been employed by another person and would get

a sum of money for sale of each bag. Hence, the facts of the

present case are similar to the facts in the case of NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED3 and the ratio of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in the said case is required to

be followed in the present case also.

14. The deceased was aged 62 years and was stated to

be a home maker. No documents have been produced to prove

the income of the deceased. Having regard to the date of the

NC: 2025:KHC:18881

HC-KAR

accident, notional income of the deceased is assessed as

`5,500/- p.m,. Since the claimant who is her son having

independent income, 50% is to be deducted towards personal

expenses.

15. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the

appropriate multiplier is '7'. Hence, loss of dependency is re-

assessed as (`5500 - 50% X 12 X 7)= `2,31,000/-.

16. The claimant has contended that he has incurred a

sum of `2,77,647/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal

noticing the medical bills (Ex.P.10) has awarded the said sum.

Hence, the said compensation is required to be upheld.

17. Having regard to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD V/S PRANAY SETHI AND ORS5 and MAGMA

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V/S NANU RAM

ALIAS CHUBRU RAM AND ORS6, the loss of consortium is

required to be re-assessed as `40,000/- together with

'(2017)16 SCC 680'

'(2018)18 SCC 130"

NC: 2025:KHC:18881

HC-KAR

increment at 10%. Hence, loss of consortium is re-assessed as

`44,000/-.

18. Further the compensation of `16,500/- each

towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is required to be

awarded.

19. In view of the compensation awarded towards loss

of consortium and other heads as ordered above, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of affection

and funeral expenses is required to be set aside.

20. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation

re-assessed is as follows:

Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Amount awarded Awarded by the by this Court (`) Tribunal (`) 1 Loss of dependency 00.00 231000.00 2 Love and affection 100000.00 00.00 3 Funeral and obsequies 25000.00 16500.00 ceremony and transportation charges

4 Loss of estate 00.00 16500.00 5 Loss of consortium 00.00 44000.00 6 Medical expenses 277647.00 277647.00 (awarded by the Tribunal as medical expenses)

Total 402647.00 585647.00

NC: 2025:KHC:18881

HC-KAR

21. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to enhanced

compensation of (`5,85,647/- - `4,02,647/-) = `1,83,000/-.

22. In view of the aforementioned, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part;

ii) The judgment and award dated 16.03.2016 passed in MVC.No.174/2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K, is hereby modified to the extent stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered;

iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of `1,83,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal;

iv) Respondent No.2 - insurer is directed to deposit the said compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;