Karnataka High Court

Thimmanagouda vs Revanna A.P And Ors on 20 November, 2025

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                   -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB
                                                            MFA No. 201539 of 2024


                       HC-KAR




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                           KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                                PRESENT

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                                  AND
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY

                            MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201539 OF 2024 (MV-D)

                       BETWEEN:
                             THIMMANAGOUDA
                             S/O LAXMAN PATIL,
                             AGE: 37 YEARS,
                             OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             R/AT: CHIKKOOR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
                             DISTRICT : BAGALKOTE - 587 122.
                                                                       ...APPELLANT

                       (BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by    AND:
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH COURT
                       1.    REVANNA A.P
OF KARNATAKA
                             S/O PRASANNA KUMAR,
                             AGE: 42 YEARS,
                             OCC: BUSINESS,
                             R/AT: ANKANAYAKANA VILLAGE,
                             TALUKA: ARKALGUD,
                             DISTRICT : HASSAN - 573 102.

                       2.    THE BRANCH MANAGER,
                             ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
                             1ST FLOOR, BIDARI COMPLEX,
                             S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.

                       3.    AFTAB
                              -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB
                                    MFA No. 201539 of 2024


HC-KAR




     S/O MOHAMMED HANIF ATTAR,
     AGE: 47 YEARS,
     OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/AT: HOUSE NO.749, SHAH ANSAR GALLI,
     PEERANWADI TQ: AND DIST: 590 014.

4.   THE MANAGER LEGAL/CLAIMS,
     RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
     COMPANY LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, DARVAR SQUARE,
     RAM MANDIR ROAD, OPPOSITE BALAJI,
     TEMPLE VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O DT. 02.07.2025 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.12.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER- MACT- XII, AT
VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.594/2021, 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 H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
         AND
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
                   ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for

short) has been filed by the claimant challenging the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB

HC-KAR

judgment and award dated 31.12.2022 passed by the III

Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-XII,

Vijayapura in MVC No.594/2021.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 23.03.2021 at about 12.40 hours,

Arebail, Yallapur, Uttar Kannada, the deceased Shakuntala

and others were traveling in an unnumbered jeep, towards

Dharmasthala and the said jeep was being driven by the

claimant, in a slow and cautious manner. When the said

jeep came near Arebail, Yallapur, at that time, the driver

of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-22/B-9755, was

wrongly parked in the middle of the road without taking

any precautions regarding the public safety i.e. he did not

put stones, near the vehicle and there was nobody to

indicate the parked vehicle. Looking to the vehicle, the

claimant slow down his jeep, at that time, another lorry

driver bearing Registration No.KA-13/C-4468 came from

hind side in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner,

the said lorry driver unable to control the same, as it was

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB

HC-KAR

heavily loaded with murmum, dashed and dragged the

jeep of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident,

the said jeep was caught between both the lorries. Due to

impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased

along with interest.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.2 and 4

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

denying the averments made in the claim petition. The

respondent Nos.1 and 3, despite service of notice, did not

appear before the Tribunal and were placed ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and

award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that

the claimant is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.15,48,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB

HC-KAR

and directed respondent Nos.2 and 4 to deposit 50% each

out of the compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the

following contentions:

a) Firstly, the claimant assert that the deceased was

aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and had a

monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/- by working as an

agriculturist. However, the assessment of monthly income

of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- by the Tribunal is

unjustified and erroneous.

b) Secondly, the Tribunal, instead of deducting 1/3rd of

the income of the deceased towards personal expenses,

has deducted 50%. The same is contrary to the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA VS.

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

c) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB

HC-KAR

claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.44,000/- under

the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.

d) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to allow the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company has raised the following counter-

contentions:

a) Firstly, although the claimant claim that the deceased

was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month, except producing

the RTC, he has not produced any other documents to

substantiate his claim. Consequently, the Tribunal has

correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

b) Secondly, since the claimant is the only dependant,

the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of

the deceased towards personal expenses.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB

HC-KAR

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence and considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to dismiss the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that Shakuntala died in the road

traffic accident occurred on 23.03.2021 due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicles by their drivers

bearing Registration Nos.KA-22/B-9755 and KA-13/C-

4468.

10. The claimant claim that deceased was earning

Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Except for producing the RTC,

the claimant has not produced any other documents to

substantial the claim. In the absence of proof of income,

the notional income has to be assessed. According to the

guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB

HC-KAR

Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2021, the

notional income of the deceased shall be taken at

Rs.14,250/- p.m. The Tribunal has rightly added 40% of

the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.19,950/-. The

claimant is the husband of the deceased. In view of law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'SARLA

VERMA', (supra), it is appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the

income of the deceased towards personal expenses and

remaining amount has to be taken as her contribution to

the family. The Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier

applicable to the age of the deceased as '16'. Thus, the

claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.25,53,600/-

(Rs.19,950*12*16*2/3) on account of 'loss of

dependency'.

11. In addition, the claimant is entitled to compensation

of Rs.16,500/- on account of 'loss of estate' and

compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of 'funeral

expenses'.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7051-DB

HC-KAR

12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra),

claimant, husband of the deceased is entitled for

compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of

spousal consortium'

13. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

compensation:

            Compensation under                Amount in
              different Heads                   (Rs.)

         Loss of dependency                        25,53,600

         Funeral expenses                                16,500

         Loss of estate                                  16,500

         Loss of spousal consortium                      44,000

                          Total                26,30,600

14. In the result, the following order is passed: