Karnataka High Court

Laxmi And Ors vs Ramesh @ Ramanna K And Ors on 19 March, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736
                                                      MFA No. 201551 of 2021




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201551 OF 2021 (MV-D)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   LAXMI W/O LATE MALLAPPA,
                        AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

                   2.   RAMESH S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
                        AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

                   3.   SHANTHA KUMAR S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
                        AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

                   4.   SURESH S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
                        AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

                   5.   BASAMMA W/O LATE GYANAPPA KAIRAWADGI,
Digitally signed        AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI                   ALL ARE R/O CHIKKA KADABUR, TQ. SINDHANUR,
Location: HIGH          NOW R/O NIJALINGAPPA COLONY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               RAICHUR-584 101.
                                                              ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.   RAMESH @ RAMANNA K. S/O SHIVAPPA
                        KAIRAWADAGI, AGE: 30 YEARS,
                        OCC: DRIVER OF TEMPO TOOFAN
                        BRG. ITS REGN. NO. KA.36/M-9556,
                        R/O CHIKKA KADABUR, TQ. SINDHANUR,
                        DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
                                 -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736
                                      MFA No. 201551 of 2021




2.   VIRUPANNA S/O HUCCHAPPA,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TOOFAN
     BRG. ITS REGN. NO. KA.36/M-9556,
     R/O OPPOSITE TO S.L.V LODGE, GULBARGA ROAD,
     LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 122.

3.   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     D.NO. 12-10-89/1, 1ST FLOOR, ANAGA COMPLEX,
     NEAR CHANDRA MOULESHWAR CHOWK,
     RAICHUR-584 101.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R3;
V/O DTD. 20.01.2022, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED
WITH)


     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.04.2021 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT., AT
RAICHUR IN MVC NO. 85/2019.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.3.

2. By consent of both sides, the matter is taken up

for final disposal.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in

MVC 85/2019 passed by learned II-Addl. District &

Sessions Judge & M.A.C.T, Raichur, dated 08.04.2021, the

petitioners are before this Court in appeal.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that on

19.06.2017, the deceased Mallappa was returning in a

Tempo Toofan vehicle bearing No.KA-36/M-9556 to his

native place and it was driven by respondent No.1, owned

by respondent No.2, insured by respondent No.3. On

Shorapur-Lingasugur main road, the driver drove the

same in a negligent manner and dashed to a road side

electric pole resulting in the said vehicle turning turtle.

The said Mallappa who was inmate of the said vehicle

sustained injuries to his head and other parts of the body

and he was shifted to Government Hospital Shorapur and

thereafter to Basaveshwara Teaching & General Hospital,

Kalaburagi. On 22.06.2017, he was shifted to Bhagwan

Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore and during the course

of the treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 13.8.2017.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

The petitioners contended that they were the dependents

of deceased Mallappa and as such they are entitled for

compensation from the owner and insurer of the said the

vehicle. A case came to be registered against the driver of

the vehicle in Crime No.162/17 and the driver was

prosecuted. They further contended that the deceased

Mallappa was aged about 51 years, running a grocery shop

and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and as an

agriculturist, he used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum.

Therefore, they claimed adequate compensation from the

respondents.

5. Despite service of notice, the respondent No.1

did not appear but however, the petition against

respondent No.1 was dismissed as not pressed. The

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared and filed their written

statements. The respondent No.2 contended that the

driver of the vehicle was not at all negligent in driving the

same and since a buffalo came across the road, he applied

the brakes and as such he lost control and hit the electric

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

pole. It was contended that the driver had a valid driving

license and as such any liability has to be fastened upon

the respondent No.3.

6. The respondent No.3-insurance company

contended that the accident occurred on a private

agriculture land and therefore, it is not liable. It also

raised the contention that the driver was not having a

valid driving licence and he had allowed more than the

permitted passengers in the said vehicle to travel. It also

denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased

and termed the claim as highly exorbitant and imaginary.

7. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the

petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to 15

were marked in evidence. The official of the respondent

No.3 was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked.

8. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.13,49,431/- under following

heads.


                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736





          Medical expenses             Rs.5,66,631/-
          Loss of dependency           Rs.7,12,800/-
          Loss of estate               Rs.0,15,000/-
          Loss of consortium           Rs.0,40,000/-
          Funeral expenses             Rs.0,15,000/-
                           Total     Rs.13,49,431/-

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

are before this court in appeal.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd

towards the personal expenses, but it should have

deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses owing to

the larger family which consisted of the 5 petitioners. The

reasoning of the Tribunal that some of the petitioners were

not the dependents of the deceased could not have been

adopted. Secondly, he submits that the quantum of the

compensation is not properly assessed. He submit that

medical bills as per Ex.P13 was not considered and the

income of the deceased was also improperly adopted. He

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

also submits that the future prospects were not considered

by the Tribunal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.3 would submit that the impugned

judgment of the Tribunal is proper and correct. He submits

that the quantum of the compensation amount, so far as it

relates to the income of the deceased, is proper and no

indulgence is required in the matter. During course of

arguments, he submitted that in view of the latest decision

of the Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Tomar and

Others V/s Ashok Kushwaha and Others1, the adult

members of the family even though they were not

dependents, come within the purview of the legal heirs

and therefore, they are also entitled for compensation and

as such appropriate order may be passed in that regard.

12. The perusal of the impugned judgment would

reveal that the Tribunal in para 9 of the judgment, holds

that the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the major sons and

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309, 2025 SCC Online SC 554

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

they are not dependents on the deceased and therefore, it

holds that 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be

deducted towards personal expenses.

13. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Anand

Pal2, lays down that the married siblings of the claimant

therein are also entitled for the compensation.

14. Thereafter, in the case of Sadhana Tomar

(supra), the Apex court has considered as many as 5

judgments and came to the conclusion that the view of the

Apex Court in the case of N.Jayasree Vs

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company

Ltd.3, holds the field and by quoting para 16 of the said

judgment, held that the legal representative whether they

are married or earning, are entitled for the compensation.

It reiterated the views taken in Gujarat SRTC V/s

AIR Online 2023 SC 1286

(2022) 14 SCC 712

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai4, and Meena Devi V/s Nunu

Chand Mahto.5

15. Thereafter, the Apex Court in the case of

Seema Rani and Others V/s Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd. and Others6, again held that the earning children

and married daughters are also entitled for the

compensation since they are the legal heirs of deceased.

The Apex Court squarely relied on previous judgment in

the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s

Birender and Others7.

16. In view of the above Catena of decisions, which

hold that the major sons and married daughters are also

dependents and therefore, they are entitled for

compensation under the M.V.Act, the view taken by the

Tribunal in this regard is not sustainable in law.

(1987) 3 SCC 234]

[(2023) 1 SCC 204]

SCC OnLine SC 283

2020 11 SCC 356

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

17. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the

Tribunal has adopted a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per

month in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding

the income of deceased. The guidelines issued by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in respect of the

settlement of the claims arising out of the motor vehicle

accidents before the Lok Adalath prescribes the notional

income of Rs.10,250/- p.m. for the year 2017. In umpteen

number of cases, this Court has held that the said

guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity

with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act.

18. The deceased was aged 55 years at the time of

the accident and therefore, the future prospects are to be

calculated as held in the case of National Insurance Co.

Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi,8 and as such the appropriate

multiplicand would be Rs.10,250/- + (Rs.10250x 10%) =

Rs.11,275/-. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated

(2017) 16 SCC 680

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

as Rs.11,275 x 3/4th x 12 x 11 = 11,16,225/- by

adopting a multiplier of 11.

19. In addition to it, the petitioners are also entitled

for a sum of Rs.52,000/- under the head of loss of

consortium, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of

funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head

of loss of a estate by adopting escalation of 10% at every

three years as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

20. So far as the medical expenses is concerned, a

perusal of the Trial Court records would show that Ex.P13

which is a bill pertaining to Mahaveer Jain Hospital for the

treatment during the period from 23.07.2017 to

13.08.2017 when deceased Mallappa died was not

considered by the Tribunal obviously due to inadvertence.

Hence the petitioners are also entitled for an additional

sum of Rs.1,92,560/- towards the Ex.P13, in addition to

the medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal.

21. Under these circumstances, the compensation is

re-assessed by this Court and the petitioners are entitled

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736

for the modified compensation under different heads as

below:

1. Loss of dependency Rs.11,16,225/-

2. Loss of consortium Rs.52,000/-

3. Loss of estate Rs.19,500/-

4. Medical expenses Rs.7,59,191/-

5. Funeral expenses Rs.19,500/-

         Total                             Rs.19,66,416/-
         Less: awarded by Tribunal         Rs.13,49,431/-
         Enhancement                       Rs.6,16,985/-

22. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves

to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a

compensation of Rs.6,16,985/- in addition

to the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, together with interest at 6% p.a.

from the date of petition till its deposit.