Karnataka High Court
Parvatavva W/O Chandrashekhar ... vs Maruti S/O Hanamantappa Jadhav on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
MFA No. 102401 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102401 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PARVATAVVA
W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KORISHETTI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. P.B. HIREMATH JYOTI NILAYA,
3RD MAIN 5TH CROSS, SIDDLINGANAGAR,
GADAG-582101.
2. BASAVARAJ
S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KORISHETTI,
GIRIJA A.
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BYAHATTI R/O. C/O. P.B. HIREMATH JYOTI NILAYA,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI 3RD MAIN 5TH CROSS, SIDDLINGANAGAR,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
GADAG-582101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MARUTI
S/O. HANAMANTAPPA JADHAV,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MARATHA GALLI, SHIRAHHATTI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
MFA No. 102401 of 2016
HC-KAR
DIST: GADAG-582120.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RENUKA ARAROAD, 1ST FLOOR,
INFRONT OF GURU TOTONDARYA MATH,
J.T.ROAD, GADAG-582101.
3. SHANMUKHAPPA
S/O. VEERAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: C/O: 5TH CROSS,
SIDDLINGANAGAR GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3-DECEASED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.254/2011
DATED 15-09-2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG UNDER ALL
PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
MFA No. 102401 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Ms. Shaila Bellikatti learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Ms. Sharmila M. Patil learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as
compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag
through orders in MVC 254 of 2011 dated 15.09.2015 the
claimants' therein preferred the present appeal.
3. It is not in dispute that the first appellant is the
wife and the second appellant is the son of the deceased
Chandrashekhar (hereinafter be referred to as 'the
deceased' for brevity), who died in a road traffic accident
that occurred in the year 2011. Only grievance exhibited by
learned counsel for the appellants is that the tribunal failed
to add future prospects and insufficiency of compensation
granted under conventional heads.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
HC-KAR
4. The submission that is made by learned counsel
for respondent No.2 is that the amount which the deceased
would have paid towards professional tax and income tax is
required to be deducted out of the earnings of the
deceased.
5. Having taken the gross salary of the deceased as
Rs.17,421/- per month, deducting Rs.1,000/- per month
towards professional tax and income tax, the tribunal came
to a conclusion that the salary of the deceased is required
to be taken as Rs.16,421/- per month and Rs.1,97,052/-
per annum. No interference in that regard is required.
However as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants, the tribunal failed to add future prospects. There
is no denial of the fact that the deceased was aged around
44 years by the date of accident. Hence, as per the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi1, 25% of the earnings are required
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
HC-KAR
to be added towards future prospects as the deceased was
not on permanent job and as he was working in a private
organization as clerk as on the date of accident, as per the
evidence produced. Thus, taking the income of the
deceased as Rs.1,97,052/- per annum, adding 25% towards
future prospects, deducting 1/3rd of the earnings towards
the personal and living expenses, which the deceased would
have incurred for himself had he been alive as the
dependents are two in number and applying the appropriate
multiplier '14' the compensation which the appellants are
entitled to towards 'loss of dependency' is as under:
Annual income Rs.1,97,052/-
On adding 25% towards future Rs.2,46,315/-
prospects
On deducting 1/3rd towards Rs.1,64,210/-
personal and living expenses
Loss of dependency, on applying Rs.22,98,940/-
appropriate multiplier '14'
6. Thus it is clear that the appellants are entitled to
a sum of Rs.22,98,940/- towards 'loss of dependency'. Also
the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
HC-KAR
Further the first appellant being the wife of the deceased is
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of spousal consortium'
and the second appellant being the son of the deceased is
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of parental
consortium'. The total compensation which the appellants
are thus entitled to is as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards loss of dependency 22,98,940/-
Towards loss of spousal consortium 40,000/-
Towards loss of parental 40,000/-
consortium
Towards loss of estate 15,000/-
Towards funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 24,08,940/-
7. The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.18,79,152/- as
compensation. However the aforementioned discussion
makes it clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.24,08,940/- as compensation. Therefore the appeal is
disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16304
HC-KAR
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag through
orders in MVC 254 of 2011 dated 15.09.2015 is
enhanced from Rs.18,79,152/- to
Rs.24,08,940/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till the date of deposit except for the period of
delay of 228 days as per orders in IA No.1 of
2017.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
(v) Out of the enhanced sum, the first appellant is
entitled to 70% and the second appellant to
30%.
(vi) On deposit, appellants are permitted to
withdraw their respective shares.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
EM
CT-MCK
