Karnataka High Court
Savantrewwa And Ors vs Karan Bhada And Anr on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
MFA No. 202274 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202274 OF 2022 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202256 OF 2023 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.202274/2022:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER LEGAL,
THE TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
J.P. AND DEVI JAMBAKESHWAR ARCADE,
NO.69, MILLER'S ROAD, BENGALURU-52.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SAVANTREWWA W/O BODALAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. BODALAPPA S/O PEERAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O SHRISHAIL BODALAPPA
PUJARI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
4. PRABHAVATI W/O PARASHURAM ALLAPUR,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
MFA No. 202274 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023
5. MALLIKARJUN S/O SHRISHAIL BODALAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
6. SAKKUBAI W/O SHRISHAIL BODALAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL ARE R/O JEVOOR, TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA,
NOW AT DARGA ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
7. KARAN BHATLA S/O AJAY BHATLA,
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHAKTI NAGAR, GURAGAON,
NOW AT B.G.520, SANJAY GANDHI TRANSPORT
NAGAR, DELHI-110 042.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6;
V/O DTD. 29.03.2023, NOTICE TO R7 IS HAND SUMMONS)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.11.2021 IN MVC
NO.389/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT NO.VII, VIJAYAPURA.
IN MFA NO.202256/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVANTREWWA W/O BODALAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SRI. BODALAPPA S/O PEERAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
MFA No. 202274 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023
3. SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O SRISHAIL PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
4. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O PARASHURAM ALLAPUR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
5. SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O SRISHAIL PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
6. SMT. SAKKUBAI W/O SRISHAIL PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEASR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O JEVOOR VILLAGE, TQ. INDI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KARAN BHATTA S/O AJAY BHATLA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHAKTI NAGAR, GURUGAON,
NOW AT B.G 520,
SANJAY GANDHI TRANSPORT NAGAR,
DELHI-110 042.
2. THE MANAGER,
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JP AND DEVI JAMBAKESHWAR ARCADE,
NO. 69 MILLER'S ROAD, BANGALORE-52.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
MFA No. 202274 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023
JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 15-11-2021 PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-VII,
VIJAYPUR IN MVC NO. 389/2015.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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)
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC No. 389/2015 dated 15.11.2021 by the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VII, Vijaypura, the
petitioners are in appeal in MFA No.202256/2023 and the
Insurance Company is in appeal in MFA No. 202274/2022.
2. The factual matrix of the cases are that, on
12.11.2014, the deceased Shrishail, son of Bodalappa
Pujari, was returning from his land on a TVs XL motorcycle
bearing No.KA.28.EA.5583 and near Halsangi Cross, on
NH13, Vijayapura Solapur Road, at about 2.15 p.m., a
Truck bearing No.HR.55.K.4173 came in high speed and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler,
resulting in the deceased Shrishail suffering grievous
injuries and later he succumbed to injuries on 20.11.2014.
The petitioners who are parents, wife and children of the
deceased Shishail, approached the Tribunal for
compensation contending that the deceased was aged 40
years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by his
agriculture and coolie work and as such, adequate
compensation may be awarded to them.
3. On being served with the notice, respondent
No.1 did not appear and as such, placed exparte.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through
its counsel and resisted the claim petition contending that
there was negligence on the part of the deceased, the
driver of the Truck was not having a valid driving licence
at the time of the accident, the compensation claimed is
highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and that the
major sons and daughters of the deceased are not the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
dependents and as such, they are not entitled for
compensation.
4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the
first petitioner was examined as PW1 and an eye witness
of the accident was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to
P13 were marked on their behalf. The official of
respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and Exhibits R1 to
5 were marked.
5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held
that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver
of the Truck was not having a valid driving licence and
that petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are not the dependents of the
deceased and it determined the compensation at
Rs.10,62,022/- under different heads as below:
Loss of income due to dependency Rs. 6,00,120/-
Medical expenses Rs. 1,91,902/-
Towards loss of spousal parental and Rs. 2,40,000/-
filial consortium
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Towards transportation and funeral Rs. 15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.10,62,022/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners as
well as the Insurance Company are before this Court.
7. The Tribunal records have been secured and the
arguments are heard. In MFA No.202256/2023 several
efforts to serve the notice on respondent No.1 remained
unsuccessful. However, notice to respondent No.1 is
dispensed with since respondent No.1 had remained
exparte before the Tribunal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company submits that the driver of the lorry
was not having a valid driving licence. The endorsement
of the concerned RTO which is produced at Ex.R3 would
show that there were no records in that office concerning
the Driving Licence which was mentioned in the
chargesheet. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in
holding that Ex.R3 would not show that the driver was not
having a valid driving licence, but it only shows that no
records are available. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the Insurance Company that the absence of any record
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
pertaining to the driving licence of the driver of the Truck
would inevitably result in said driver not possessing the
driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the
inference drawn by the Tribunal in this regard is erroneous
and as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioners.
9. Sofar as the quantum of the compensation
amount is concerned, he defends the impugned judgment
stating that petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 being major and married
were not entitled for compensation as they were not the
dependents. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit
in the appeal filed by the petitioners.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Sadhana Tomar and Others V/s
Ashok Kushwaha and Others1, lays down that the
major sons and married daughters also come within the
purview of the legal heirs and therefore, they are entitled
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309, 2025 SCC Online SC 554
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
for the compensation. Secondly, he submits that the
notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower
side and therefore, the compensation under the head of
'loss of dependency' needs to be reconsidered by this
Court. He restrict his claim in this appeal only in respect of
the quantum of loss of dependency.
11. A perusal of the Tribunal records would show
that the Insurance Company had issued notice to the
owner of the vehicle as per Ex.R4. The said notice issued
to the owner had been returned with a endorsement 'no
such addressee was found'. Therefore, the notice to the
owner of the vehicle remained un served by the Insurance
Company also. Ex.R3, issued by RTO Nagaland, would
show that there are no records either found or available in
respect of the Driving Licence No. 40165/TV/T/ 2010 in
the name of Shri Khayyam. Except this there is nothing on
record to show that the driver had no valid driving licence.
12. The Tribunal observers that Ex.R3 would only
show that there is no record in the RTO. That cannot be
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
equated to an inference to be drawn to mean that the
driver did not possess the driving licence. When the
Investigating Officer has filed the chargesheet he had
ascertained that there was a driving licence to the driver,
it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove
that the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer was
erroneous. Therefore, when Ex.R3 was issued by the
concerned RTO, it falls short of proving that the charge
sheet contents are also incorrect. In that view of the
matter, no fault can be found with the inferences drawn by
the Tribunal in respect of Ex.R3. The absence of the valid
driving licence to the driver of the lorry has not been
proved by the Insurance Company. In the result, the
appeal filed by the Insurance Company is bereft of any
merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. So far as the quantum of the compensation
amount is concerned, the first contention of the petitioners
is that the petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are also the legal heirs of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
the deceased Shrishail and therefore, they can not be
denied of the compensation.
14. 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. Thereafter,
in the case of Sadhana Tomar and Others V/s Ashok
Kushwaha and Others (supra), the Apex Court has
held that 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.
15. In Sadhana Tomar's case (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
AIR Online 2023 SC 1286
(2022) 14 SCC 712
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
representative whether they are married or earning, are
entitled for the compensation. It reiterated the views
taken in Gujarat SRTC V/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai4,
and Meena Devi V/s Nunu Chand Mahto.5
16. 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.
17. 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
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
18. In the result, they being admitted to be the
members of the family of the deceased, the personal
expenses of the deceased are to be held at 1/4th.
19. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the
purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalat
prescribe notional income of Rs.7,500/- per month for the
year 2014. Therefore, assessing the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.7,500/- and adding Rs.3,000/- (40% of
the same) towards future prospects, the loss of
dependency is calculated as: Rs.10,500/- [(7,500/- +
Rs.3,000/- (40% of Rs.7,500/-)] x 12x 15
x3/4=Rs.14,17,500/- instead of Rs.6,00,120/- awarded by
the Tribunal. There shall be an enhancement of
Rs.8,17,380/-.
20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,91,902/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2,40,000/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- each towards loss
of estate and transportation and funeral expenses. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
he is not pressing any claim for reconsideration or
reassessment in respect of the remaining heads.
21. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioners
deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) MFA No.202274/2022 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed.
(ii) MFA No.202256/2023 filed by the petitioners
is hereby allowed in part.
(iii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified.
(iv) The petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.
Rs.8,17,380/- in addition to what has been
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6%
p.a., (excluding interest for the delayed
period of 378 days in filing the appeal)
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921
(v) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal
remains unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
CT: AK
