Karnataka High Court
Smt.Suma W/O Late V Durgesh @ Durganna vs V. Yerriswamy S/O V Yankoba on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
MFA No. 103929 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103929 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUMA W/O. LATE V.DURGESH @ DURGANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O: SUGGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BELLARI DIST.
2. MINOR V. AKASH
S/O. LATE V. DURGESH @ DURGANNA
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. SUMA W/O. LATE V. DURGESH @ DURGANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
Digitally signed by R/O: SUGGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BELLARI DIST.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.15
10:24:53 +0530
3. MINOR HINDU D/O. LATE V. DURGESH @ DURGANNA
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. SUMA W/O. LATE V. DURGESH @ DURGANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: SUGGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BELLARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
MFA No. 103929 of 2015
HC-KAR
AND:
1. V. YERRISWAMY S/O. V. YANKOBA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
OWNER CUM RIDER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE
BEARING REGN. NO.KA-35/X-3901,
R/O: HOSA DAROJI VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST: BELLARI DIST.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PARAVATHI NAGAR, BELLARI DIST.
3. SMT. DURGAMMA W/O. LATE DURUGJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O: SUGGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BELLARI DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED:
10.07.2019;
SRI. MADHUKESHWAR A. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC))
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PARRYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT & AWARD
DATED:22.07.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.207/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BALLARI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
MFA No. 103929 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for enhancement of
compensation by the claimants unsatisfied by the judgment
and award passed in MVC No.207/2015 dated 22.07.2015
on the file of the III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari,
(for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. The parties would be referred to as per their
rankings before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience
and clarity.
3. The case of claimants before trial Court in
nutshell is that on 21.01.2015, the deceased-V. Durgesh @
Duruganna, along with respondent No.1, was proceeding in
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/X-3901 from
Kurugodu towards Suggenahalli Village at about 05.59 p.m.
near Kampli Kurugodu road; at that time, respondent No.1
rode the same rashly and negligently, lost his control over
the vehicle and dashed to the stone and thereby fall down;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
HC-KAR
due to which V. Durgesh @ Duruganna fall down, sustained
severe injuries and died at the spot. They would further
contend that deceased was aged about 37 years, working
as private conductor and earning ₹.15,000/- per month.
The appellants being his wife, minor children and mother
have lost the earning member of their family. Hence,
prayed for compensation under different heads.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared
through his counsel, but not filed his objection statement.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through his
counsel and filed the objection statement, wherein he has
denied the contention of petitioner in toto and took all the
relevant defence available to the insurer and owner. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was
examined as P.W.1 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.11 and
closed their side. On behalf of respondents no evidence is
let in except marking Exs.R.1-copy of policy. After recording
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
HC-KAR
evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides,
the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
₹.7,90,000/- under following different heads:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs.7,20,000-00
2. Transportation of dead body and Rs. 20,000-00
funeral expenses
3. Loss of consortium to the 1st Rs. 25,000-00
petitioner
4. Loss of estate Rs. 25,000-00
Total Rs.7,90,000-00
6. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants-appellants
have filed this appeal praying for enhanced compensation
under different heads.
7. Learned counsel for appellants Sri Y.
Lakshmikant Reddy would submit that the Tribunal has not
made calculation of income of the deceased as per KSLSA
guideless to decide the dependency and also not added the
future prospects as awarded in the cases of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1
2017(16) SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
HC-KAR
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu
Ram & Others2 and also not awarded the compensation
towards consortium to petitioner No.2 to 4.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri
Madhukeshwar A Deshpande would submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and hence,
pray for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the arguments of both sides and
verifying the records, the only point that arises for
consideration is "Whether appellants-claimants are entitled
for enhanced compensation?"
10. My answer to the above point is in "affirmative"
for the following reasons:-
11. The date, time and place of accident is not in
dispute. The age of deceased was 37 years as deposed by
the claimant No.1. But, as per PM report, his age was 35
(2018) 18 SCC 130
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
HC-KAR
years and hence, the Tribunal has taken the age of the
deceased at 35 years, which is proper.
12. No documentary evidence is produced to prove
the actual income of deceased at the time of accident.
Under those circumstances, the guidelines given by KSLSA
for Lok Adalath to be considered. The accident occurred in
the year 2015. Hence, the notional income of deceased is
taken at ₹.8,000/- per month.
13. As per the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others3, 40% of the income of
deceased is to be added towards future prospects which is
at ₹.3,200/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased
would be 11,200. He left behind 4 dependents. Hence,
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport
2017(16) SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
HC-KAR
Corporation and Another4, one fourth of his income is to
be deducted towards his personal expenses which would be
₹.2,800/-. After deducting it, his monthly income would be
₹.8,400/- and it is to be multiplied by '12' and '16' as his
age was 35 years as on the date of accident. It would
amount to ₹.16,12,800/-. Hence, the income towards loss
of dependency would be ₹.16,12,800/- instead of
₹.7,20,000/- taken by the tribunal.
14. As far as transportation of dead body and funeral
expenses, ₹.15,000/- along with 10% escalation charges is
to be taken according to the Pranay Sethi's case cited
supra, i.e. ₹.16,500/- instead of ₹.20,000/- granted by the
Tribunal. As far as loss of estate ₹.15,000/- along with
10% escalation charges is to be taken according to the
Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, i.e. ₹.16,500/- instead of
₹.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal. As far as loss of
consortium is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only
₹.25,000/- to first petitioner. But all the petitioners are
(2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
HC-KAR
entitled for compensation under the head loss of spousal
consortium to claimant No.1, parental consortium to
claimant Nos.2 and 3 and filial consortium to claimant No.4
i.e. ₹.44,000/- each (including 10% escalation) so in total
₹.1,76,000/-. So the total compensation would be
₹.18,21,800/- under following heads:
1. Loss of dependency ₹.16,12,800/-
2. Transportation of dead body and ₹.16,500/-
funeral expenses
3. Loss of consortium to petitioner ₹.1,76,000/-
No.1 to 4 (40,000X4=1,60,000)
4. Loss of estate ₹.16,500/-
Total ₹.18,21,800/-
15. For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal filed by the claimants is
allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified holding that
the claimants are entitled to modified
compensation of ₹.18,21,800/- as
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15329
HC-KAR
against ₹.7,90,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount
shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition
till realization.
d) The respondent/insurance company
shall deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a
period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
e) The apportionment, disbursement and
deposit of the enhanced compensation
shall be made as per award of the
Tribunal.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
g) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
VMB
CT-CMU
