Karnataka High Court

The Branch Manager vs Nasbin And Ors on 25 June, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                               -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382
                                                          MFA No. 200339 of 2023


                    HC-KAR



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                             BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                          MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200339 OF 2023 (MV-D)

                   BETWEEN:

                        THE BRANCH MANAGER,
                        NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
                        OPP: RDCC BANK, GUNJ ROAD,
                        RAICHUR - 584 102.
                        NOW REPRESENTED BY
                        THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                        NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
                        SANGAMESHWARA COLONY,
                        KALABURAGI - 585 101.
                                                                      ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SRI SANJAY M JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH          1.   NABSIN W/O AREEF,
MATHAPATI               AGE: 27 YEARS,
Location: HIGH          OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
COURT OF                R/O: ROUDKUNDA,
KARNATAKA               TQ: SINDHANUR,
                        DIST: RAICHUR
                        NOW RESIDING AT LBS NAGAR,
                        RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR 584 101.

                   2.   AZAZ S/O LATE IBRAHIM
                        AGE: 26 YEARS,
                        OCC: MESON WORK,
                        R/O: SINDHANUR,
                        DIST: RAICHUR,
                        NOW RESIDING AT LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR
                        DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382
                                     MFA No. 200339 of 2023


 HC-KAR




3.   AZAR MOHAMMED S/O LATE IBRAHIM,
     AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
     R/O: ROUDKUNDA,
     TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR,
     NOW RESIDING AT LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR
     DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.

4.   SANNA S/O LATE IBRAHIM,
     AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
     R/O: ROUDKUNDA,
     TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR,
     NOW RESIDING AT LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR
     DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.

5.   RAJENDRA PRASAD HARIJAN
     S/O JIYALAL HARIJAN,
     AGE: 42 YEARS,
     OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY NO.KA-37/A-4544
     R/O: ASHOK PUR CHARYAPATI PRATAPGAR UP
     NOW C/O GEETANJALI BULK CARRIERS PVT. LTD,
     NEAR SHEELA MEDICAL STORE GINIGERA,
     AT GINIGERA, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL - 583 231.

6.   GEETANJALI BULK CARRIERS PVT. LTD.,
     NEAR SHEELA MEDICAL STORE, GINIGERA,
     AT GINIGERA, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL - 583 231.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.27/2017 AND MODIFY
THE SAME BY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION AWARDED OF
RS.17,32,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., AND
BRING IT DOWN TO RS.14,15,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER
ANNUM, VIZ. BY RS.3,17,000/-, FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.

     THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                                -3-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382
                                        MFA No. 200339 of 2023


HC-KAR




                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 12.10.2022

passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal at Raichur, (for short, 'tribunal') in

MVC no.27/2017, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Sanjay M.Joshi, learned counsel submitted that

appeal was by insurer challenging award on quantum. It was

submitted, as per claimants, on 23.03.2016 at 5:00 p.m.,

Ibrahim was travelling in Auto bearing no.KA-36/A-6737 near

Sindhanur nala bridge, when driver of lorry bearing no.KA-

37/A-4544 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed

against auto causing accident. In accident, Ibrhaim and two

others died. Alleging loss of dependency, his children filed claim

petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.

3. On contest, wherein, only insurer filed objections

denying accident, age, occupation and income of deceased as

well as violation of policy conditions. Tribunal framed issues

and recorded evidence. Even claim petitions were filed in

respect of other deaths that occurred in accident. All claim

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382

HC-KAR

petitions were clubbed. Claimants were examined as PWs.1 to

3, Exs.P1 to P5 were marked in MVC no.27/2017, post-mortem

examination report were marked as Exs.P6 and P7 in connected

appeals. Insurer examined its official as RW.1. Exs.R1 to R12

were got marked.

4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had

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

leading to death of Ibrahim, Rajju Sab and Mahiboob Bee @

Malanbee and claimants were held entitled for compensation

from insurer. In MVC no.27/2017 it awarded compensation as

follows:

Sl.No. Heads                                 Amount
   1   Towards loss of dependency            Rs.16,12,000/-
   2   Towards    love   and   affection     Rs.   80,000/-
       (Rs.20,000 x 4)
   3   For transportation of dead body       Rs.    40,000/-
       and funeral expenses
                                  Total      Rs.17,32,000/-

5. Aggrieved by said award, insurer was in appeal. It

was firstly submitted, tribunal erroneously took higher monthly

income at Rs.9,000/- even though claimants had not led any

evidence to establish income. It was submitted, claimants had

stated age of deceased-Ibrahim as 45 years in claim petition

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382

HC-KAR

however, tribunal considered his age as 35 years based on

post-mortem examination report which was not justified.

Consequently, there was error not only in multiplier applicable

but also, about quantum of future prospects to be added. On

above grounds, sought for allowing appeal and modifying

award.

6. On other hand, Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned

counsel for claimants opposed appeal. It was submitted, though

there were four dependents, tribunal had erred in deducting

1/3rd towards personal expenses, deduction should have been

at 1/4th as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others1.

It was submitted, there is no scope for reduction on any of

grounds urged by insurer and sought for dismissal of appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment

and award.

8. From above, it is seen that insurer is in appeal

challenging award on quantum. Therefore, point that would

arise for consideration is:

AIR 2017 SC 5157

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382

HC-KAR

"Whether assessment of compensation by tribunal calls for interference?"

9. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following

reasons:

10. Though in claim petition claimants stated that

deceased-Ibrahim was agriculturist and earning Rs.2,00,000/-

per annum, they did not substantiate same with specific

material. In absence, tribunal was justified in assessing it

notionally. But, notional income for 2016 is Rs.8,750/- per

month, tribunal was not justified in taking income at Rs.9,000/.

Further, when claimants themselves stated age of deceased

was 45 years and age of claimants, his children were shown as

18 years, 19 years, 20 years and 21 years respectively, it

would be more probable that claimants had mentioned correct

age in claim petition. Therefore, tribunal erred in determining

age of deceased as 35 years, same has to be considered as 45

years. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's

case (supra), tribunal ought to have added future prospects to

monthly income. Taking note of age of deceased as 45 years,

his occupation as self-employed, it ought to have added 25%

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382

HC-KAR

towards future prospects. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Pranay Sethi (supra), has held in case deceased was married

person, deduction should be at 1/3rd, where number of

claimants are four to six, deduction should be at 1/4th.

Claimants are four in number, therefore, deduction should be at

1/4th and multiplier applicable to age group of deceased would

be 14. Thus, re-computation of compensation towards loss of

dependency would be Rs.13,78,125/- [(Rs.8,750 + 25%) x 12

x 14 - 1/4th] and same is awarded.

11. Apart from above, claimants would be entitled to

Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium, Rs.15,000/-

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

estate. Since more than six years have lapsed after decision in

Pranay Sethi's case (supra), there has to be addition of 20%

on amount awarded under conventional heads. Thus, claimants

would be entitled for Rs.2,28,000/- (Rs.1,90,000+20%) under

conventional heads. Consequently, following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 12.10.2022 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382

HC-KAR

at Raichur, in MVC no.27/2017 is modified, claimants are held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.16,06,125/- as against Rs.17,32,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Same shall carry interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till payment.

ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to tribunal for payment. Balance amount, if any, to be deposited by insurer within six weeks from today.