Karnataka High Court

Girilingamma And Anr vs N K Logistics And Anr on 18 June, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-K:3193
                                                         MFA No. 204035 of 2023


                    HC-KAR



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
                                              BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                          MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 204035 OF 2023 (MV-D)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   GIRILINGAMMA W/O SOOGAPPA,
                        AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                   2.   BASAMMA D/O SOOGAPPA,
                        AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                        BOTH ARE R/O: H.NO.011, MAIN ROAD,
                        NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
                        HIREBUDUR, DIST: RAICHUR.
                                                                      ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   N.K. LOGISTICS
                        OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
                        REG. NO.NL-01/AC-2028 VPO,
                        TOSHAM, NEAR BHARATH ICE FACTORY,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH               BHIWANI, (HARIYANA STATE) - 127 040.
MATHAPATI          2.   THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
Location: HIGH          DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
COURT OF                SANGAMESHWAR COLONY,
KARNATAKA               KALABURAGI - 585 102.
                        THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                       NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

                         THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
                   SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
                   APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.08.2023 IN
                   M.V.C.NO.71/2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
                   M.A.C.T.-II, AT YADGIRI, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING
                   THE COMPENSATION.
                                   -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-K:3193
                                            MFA No. 204035 of 2023


HC-KAR




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

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 28.08.2023

passed by Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-II at Yadgiri, in MVC no.71/2022, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned counsel

submitted, appeal was by claimants for enhancement of

compensation. On 20.01.2022, Sugappa was walking by side

of Yadgiri-Hyderabad main road, near Shubam Petrol Bunk at

9.30 a.m., when driver of lorry bearing registration no.NL-01-

AC-2028 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against Sugappa. Though Sugappa was admitted to

Government Hospital, he died during treatment on 23.01.2022.

Alleging loss of dependency, his wife and daughter filed claim

petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner

and insurer of offending lorry.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3193

HC-KAR

3. On contest wherein, respondents denied entire

claim petition averments as well as alleged violation of policy

conditions, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.

Claimant no.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-

1 to P-8. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 and got marked

insurance policy as Ex.R1.

4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver

leading to death of Sugappa and claimants were held entitled

for compensation of Rs.18,50,000/-. Since insurance was

admitted, it held insurer liable to pay same.

5. Not satisfied with same, claimants are in appeal. It

was submitted though accident occurred in year 2022 and

claimants had stated that deceased-Sugappa was earning

Rs.25,000/- per month from hotel business, Tribunal assessed

monthly income notionally at Rs.12,000/-, same was not

justified. It was submitted, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay

Sethi and Others1, Tribunal did not add 10% to award under

AIR 2017 SC 5157

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3193

HC-KAR

conventional heads. It was also submitted that Tribunal did not

refer to medical bills, despite Sugappa succumbing to death

while in treatment. On said grounds, sought enhancement.

6. Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned counsel for

respondent no.2-insurer, on other hand, opposed appeal. It

was submitted though there was some scope for enhancement,

same was offset by fact that without justification tribunal

awarded Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection and

Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and conveyance etc. On

said ground, sought dismissal of appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment

and award.

8. From above and since insurer has not challenged

award while claimants are in appeal, only point that would arise

for consideration is:

"Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?"

9. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following

reasons:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3193

HC-KAR

10. It is not in dispute that accident occurred on

20.01.2022 leading to death of Sugappa. Claimants have stated

that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from hotel

business, but, same was not substantiated with any material.

In absence, Tribunal assessed it notionally. Notional income for

year 2022 being Rs.14,750/- per month and same has to be

considered. Tribunal rightly considered age as per post-mortem

report at 45 years and applied multiplier of 14. Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that

even in case of assessment of monthly income of deceased

notionally, claimants would be entitled for addition towards

future prospects. Deceased was aged 45 years and self

employed. Corresponding addition towards future prospects

would be at 25%. Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards

personal expenses of deceased. Consequently, computation of

loss of dependency would be: Rs.14,750/- + 25% x 12 x 14 -

1/3rd (towards personal expenses)= Rs.20,64,737/-.

11. Apart from said compensation, claimants-wife and

daughter would be entitled to compensation towards loss of

spousal consortium and parental consortium at Rs.40,000/-

respectively. They would also be entitled to Rs.15,000/-

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3193

HC-KAR

towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate. On said amount, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), they would be entitled

for addition of 10%. Thus, claimants would be entitled for total

compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- under conventional heads.

12. Claimants produced 11 medical bills marked as

Ex.P8. Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for denying

compensation towards medical expenses since death of

Sugappa was during treatment. Perusal of certified copies of

Ex.P8 made available by learned counsel for claimants and

examined by learned counsel for respondent-insurer also,

would indicate that Hospital bill with paid endorsement, was for

Rs.40,000/- while total amount of medical bills was Rs.16,571/.

Amount covered under advance receipt cannot be considered.

In absence of any serious dispute about death of injured during

treatment, claimants would be entitled for amount spent

towards medical expenses. Therefore, sum of Rs.56,571/- is

awarded towards medical expenses.

13. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for insurer,

award of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and conveyance

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3193

HC-KAR

and Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection by Tribunal would

not be justified. Thus, claimants would be entitled for total

compensation of Rs.22,42,515/-. Point for consideration is

answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 28.08.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II at Yadgiri in MVC no.71/2022 is modified, claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.22,42,515/- as against Rs.18,50,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

ii. Other conditions about rate of interest, deposit and release of compensation would apply as per award of Tribunal to enhanced award proportionately.