Karnataka High Court

Chandrawwa And Ors vs M/S Sadbhava Engineering Limited And ... on 26 November, 2025

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                    -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB
                                                          MFA No. 202698 of 2022


                      HC-KAR




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 26TH 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.202698 OF 2022 (MV-D)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SMT. CHANDRAWWA
                            W/O SIDRAMAPPA BAJANTRI,
                            AGE: 25 YEARS,
                            OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                      2.    BASAPPA
                            S/O YAMANAPPA BAJANTRI,
                            AGE: 60 YEARS,
                            OCC. AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE,

Digitally signed by   3.    SMT. LAXMIBAI
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ                    W/O BASAPPA BAJANTRI,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH              AGE: 57 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   OCC: HOUSE WORK,
                      4.    KUMARI KHUSHI
                            D/O SIDRAM @ SIDRAMAPPA BAJANTRI,
                            AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                            SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
                            M/G MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1.
                            ALL ARE R/O: YARANAL, TQ: B.BAGEWADI,
                            NOW RESIDING AT RAM NAGAR,
                            BYEPASS ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 585 403.
                                                                    ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
                           -2-
                                  NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB
                                 MFA No. 202698 of 2022


HC-KAR




AND:

1.   M/S SADBHAVA ENGINEERING LIMITED,
     BY ITS PROPRIETOR "SADBHAV HOUSE",
     OPP: LAW GARDEN, POLICE CHOWKI,
     UDAYAN MARK, ELLIS BRIDGE
     AHAMEDABAD - 380 006,
     GUJARAT.

     AND ALSO SADBHAV ENGINEERING LIMITED,
     MANAGULI DEVAPUR ROAD,
     PROJECT CHKM49,
     MANAGULI TALIKOTI ROAD,
     SH61, BALAGANUR, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
     DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 585 403.

2.   THE HEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER,
     IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     3RD FLOOR, ITI BLOCK,
     KSCMI BUILDING NO.8,
     CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 58.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 29.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.368/2017 BY THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV AT VIJAYAPUR, AND
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.16,76,000/- WITH
6% INTEREST TO RS.47,66,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST AND
ETC.

     THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, 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
                              -3-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB
                                    MFA No. 202698 of 2022


HC-KAR




                     ORAL JUDGMENT

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

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 claimants challenging the

judgment and award dated 12.11.2021 passed by the IV

Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-XV,

Vijayapura, in MVC No.368/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 08.03.2017 at about 10:30 PM

on Managuli-Basavana Bagewadi road near Jerakena Halla

near Yaranal village, when the deceased Sidramappa was

proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

03/HN-8067 along with his friend as pillion rider, from

Managuli to Yaranal village, at that time, a tar road

making vehicle bearing No.P53208 ABG was parked

negligently in the middle of the road by its driver without

any signal lights or indicators, as a result, the motorcycle

dashed to the said vehicle and caused the accident. As a

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR

result of the aforesaid accident, Sidramappa sustained

grievous injuries and was shifted to Sanjeevani Hospital

Vijayapura, where he succumbed to the injuries on

19.03.2017.

3. The claimants 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, respondent No.2

Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed

written statement denying the averments made in the

claim petition. Respondent No.1, despite service of notice,

did not appear before the Tribunal and was 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 claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.16,76,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR

Since the claimants and respondent No.2 have filed joint

memo whereby claimants have agreed to receive and

respondent No.2 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as

per the third party liability covered under the policy and

respondent No.1 was directed to pay the remaining

amount of Rs.10,26,000/- along with interest at the rate

of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the present appeal

has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants has

raised the following contentions:

a) Firstly, since there are four claimants, the Tribunal

instead of deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased

for personal expenditure, deducted 1/3rd. The same is

contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121].

b) Secondly, claimants assert that the deceased was

aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and had a

monthly income of Rs.20,000/- He was self employed.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR

However, the assessment of monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.10,250/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and

erroneous.

c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance co.

Ltd. -v- Pranay Sethi and Others [AIR 2017 SC

5157], in cases, where the deceased was self-employed

or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the

established income towards 'future prospects' is warranted

when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The

said principle shall be applied to the present case.

d) Fourthly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the

claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of

estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.

e) Fifthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Magma General Insurance

Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram and others, 2018

ACJ 2782 each of the claimants is entitled to

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR

compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of

love and affection and consortium'.

f) 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, the liability of the Insurance Company as per

the policy is only to an extent of Rs.9,00,000/- to that

extent, the Insurance Company has already satisfied the

liability.

b) Secondly, 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

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR

contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the

appeal.

8. Respondent No.1 owner was served but

unrepresented.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

10. It is not in dispute that Sidramappa died in the

road traffic accident occurred on 08.03.2017 whereby he

was proceeding on a motorcycle and dashed to the tar

road making machine bearing No.P53208 ABG which was

parked in the middle of the road negligently.

11. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.10,250/-. To the aforesaid

income, 40% has to be added on account of future

prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court in 'Pranay Sethi' (supra).

Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.14,350/-. Since

there are 04 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR

of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses

and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution

to the family. The deceased was aged about 22 years at

the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his

age group is '18'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to

compensation of Rs.23,24,700/- (Rs.14,350*12*18*3/4)

on account of 'loss of dependency'.

12. In addition, the claimants are entitled to

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate'

and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral

expenses'.

13. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of 'Magma General Insurance Co.

Ltd.,' (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is

entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head

of 'loss of spousal consortium'. Claimant Nos.2 and 3,

parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of

Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of filial

consortium' and claimant No.4, daughter of the deceased

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR

is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the

head of 'loss of parental consortium'.

14. The compensation of Rs.1,19,604/- awarded by

the Tribunal under the head of 'medical expenses' is based

on the medical bills produced by the claimants and is

deemed just and reasonable.

15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

            Compensation under                Amount in
              different Heads                   (Rs.)

         Loss of dependency                     23,24,700

         Medical Bills                           1,19,604

         Funeral expenses                          15,000

         Loss of estate                            15,000

         Loss of spousal consortium                40,000

         Loss of Parental consortium               40,000

         Loss of Filial consortium                 80,000

                          Total                26,34,304

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

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

c) The claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.26,34,304/- as against

Rs.16,75,748/- awarded by the Tribunal.

d) The liability of the Insurance Company is only to

an extent of Rs.9,00,000/- and out of which

Rs.2,50,000/- has already been paid to the

injured claimant and remaining Rs.6,50,000/-

has been paid to the appellants herein.

e) Respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle

is directed to pay the remaining amount of

Rs.19,84,304/- (Rs.26,34,304/- less

Rs.6,50,000/-) to the claimants along with

interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the

claim petition till the date of realization, within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7214-DB

HC-KAR