Karnataka High Court

Anusuya And Anr vs Manjunath And Anr on 27 June, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463
                                                        MFA No. 200038 of 2023


                    HC-KAR



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                              BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                          MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200038 OF 2023 (MV-D)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   ANUSUYA
                        W/O LATE BALAJI SINGH,
                        AGE: 52 YEARS,
                        OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

                   2.   SHARDA
                        D/O LATE BALAJI SINGH,
                        AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL

                        BOTH ARE R/O: MUDDIPETE,
                        RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                                                     ...APPELLANTS

                   (BY SMT.SHANTABAI SUBHASH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed   AND:
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
                   1.   MANJUNATH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF BAJAJ PULSAR-180
KARNATAKA               NO. KA-25/S-4763,
                        R/O: H.NO.11-12-23,
                        BRESTWARPETH, RAICHUR - 584 101.

                   2.   THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                        BRANCH OFFICE, K.K. COMPLEX,
                        RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                   R1 SERVED)
                                       -2-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463
                                                MFA No. 200038 of 2023


 HC-KAR



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.01.2014, PASSED BY THE MACT
AND II-ADJ AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.242/2012, AND PLEASE TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION, AND ALSO LIABILITY TO BE FIXED
ON THE RESPONDENT NO.2, 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


                            ORAL JUDGMENT

Appeal is filed against judgment and award dated

25.01.2014 passed by Member, MACT and II Additional District

Judge, Raichur (for short 'tribunal') in MVC no.242/2012, this

appeal is filed.

2. Smt.Patil Shantabai Subhash submitted appeal was

by claimants for enhancement of compensation. On 08.03.2012

when Rajeshwar Singh was pillion rider on motorcycle no.KA-

25/S-4763 ridden by Ramesh towards Shaktinagar, Raichur,

due to cattle coming across road, rider lost control and dashed

motorcycle against electrical pole and caused accident. Due to

same, Rajeshwar Singh sustained severe injuries and even

though rushed to hospital, succumbed. His mother and minor

sister filed claim petition against owner and insurer of

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463

HC-KAR

motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Even Rider

of motorcycle filed MVC no.345/2012. Both were clubbed.

3. Owner did not appear. He was placed ex-parte.

Insurer opposed claim petition denying liability on ground that

policy in question was an 'Act Liability Only' Policy. Based on

pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.

Claimants were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P.13

were got marked. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 and

policy copy was got marked as Ex.R1.

4. On consideration, tribunal held accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its

rider and claimants were entitled for compensation as follows :-

1. Loss of dependency `6,48,000/-

2. Loss of estate `10,000/-

3. Loss of love and affection `1,00,000/-

4. Transportation and funeral expenses `25,000/-

Total `7,83,000/-

5. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal. It

was submitted deceased was pillion rider on motorcycle, which

was duly insured. Therefore, as per decision in case of Bajaj

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463

HC-KAR

Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. BM

Niranjan and Anr.1, insurer could not escape liability.

6. On quantum, it was submitted claimant was

working as Vehicle Stand Maintainer at SNT Talkies, Raichur

and earning `6,000/- per month. Tribunal accepted it. When

notional income for year 2012 was `6,500/-, tribunal was not

justified in taking it at `6,000/-. Tribunal also erred in not

adding future prospects to monthly income. Even award under

conventional heads was improper and sought enhancement.

7. On other hand, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned

counsel for insurer opposed appeal. Relying upon decision of

Division Bench of this Court in case of Branch Manager, New

India Assurance Company Limited v. Mahadev

Pandurang Patil and Anr.2, he submitted, in case of an Act

Liability Only Policy, insurer could not be held liable for risk of

pillion rider without payment of additional premium. Therefore,

tribunal was justified in absolving liability of insurer. Hence, no

interference was warranted.

2007 (6) AIR Kar R 597

ILR 2012 KAR 1841

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463

HC-KAR

8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned

judgment and award and records.

9. From above and since claimants are assailing

finding of tribunal on liability as well as seeking for

enhancement of compensation, following points would arise for

consideration:

"1. Whether finding of tribunal on liability calls for interference?

2. Whether claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as prayed for?"

Point no.1:

10. Perusal of Ex.R1 reveals that insurance coverage

subscribed to by owner in this case is Act Liability Only, without

payment of additional premium for covering risk of pillion rider.

In BM Niranjan's case (supra), policy under consideration was

Package Policy, whereas Division Bench of this Court in

Mahadev Pandurang Patil's case (supra) was dealing with Act

Liability Only policy. Therefore, ratio laid down by Division

Bench would be attracted. Consequently, finding of tribunal

absolving insurer and holding owner liable would be justified.

Point no.1 is answered in negative.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463

HC-KAR

Point no.2 :

11. On quantum, in claim petition it was stated,

deceased Rajeshwar Singh was working as Vehicle Stand

Maintainer and earning `6,000/- per month. Tribunal considered

said amount. Merely on ground that notional income for

relevant period was `6,500/-, claimants would not be justified

in seeking for consideration of said amount.

12. Claimants are mother and minor sister, while

deceased was self-employed bachelor aged 20 years. Tribunal

rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses. Even

adoption of multiplier '18' would be justified. But, tribunal has

not added future prospects to monthly income. As per ratio laid

down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.3, 40% has to be

added towards future prospects. Thus, computation of loss of

dependency would be :

(`6,000/- + 40%) x 50% x 12 x 18 = `9,07,200/-.

(2017) 16 SCC 680

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463

HC-KAR

13. As per decision in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and

Ors.4 each of claimants would be entitled to `40,000/- towards

loss of consortium, apart from, `15,000/- towards loss of estate

and `15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in common. As per

decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) there has to be

addition of 10% to award under conventional heads for every

three years. Since more than six years have elapsed after

rendering said decision, claimants would be entitled for addition

of 20% (i.e. `22,000/-) to award under conventional heads.

Claimants are entitled for reassessed compensation as follows:-

1. Loss of dependency `9,07,200/-

2. Loss of Consortium (`40,000/- x 2) + 20% `96,000/-

3. Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses `36,000/-

Total `10,39,200/-

Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative. Hence, following :

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award

dated 25.01.2014 passed by Member, MACT and

II Additional District Judge, Raichur in MVC

(2018) 18 SCC 130

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463

HC-KAR

no.242/2012 is modified, claimants are held

entitled for reassessed compensation of

`10,39,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from

date of claim petition till deposit, from owner.