Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Rekha W/O Ravasab Kasti on 7 November, 2025

                                                             -1-
                                                                      NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274
                                                                    MFA No. 101819 of 2015


                                  HC-KAR




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                               DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                                  BEFORE

                                  THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.


                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101819 OF 2015 (MV-D)


                                 BETWEEN:


                                 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                                 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                                 DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI,
                                 BELAGAVI.
                                 REP: BY DEPUTY MANAGER,
                                 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                                 REGIONAL OFFICE, KUSUGAL ROAD,
                                 HUBLI-13.
                                                                          ...APPELLANT
                                 (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR                         AND:
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.13 11:24:49
+0530




                                 1.   SMT. REKHA,
                                      W/O RAVASAB KASTI
                                      AGE: 26 YEARS,
                                      OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                                      R/O: NASALAPUR,
                                      TQ: RAIBAG,
                                      DIST: BELAGAVI.

                                 2.   KUMARI SWETHA,
                                      D/O RAVASAB KASTI,
                                      AGE: MINOR, STUDENT,
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274
                                  MFA No. 101819 of 2015


HC-KAR




     R/O: NASALAPUR,
     TQ: RAIBAG,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.

3.   KUMAR OMKAR,
     S/O RAVASAB KASTI,
     AGE: MINOR, STUDENT,
     R/O: NASALAPUR,
     TQ: RAIBAG,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.

     RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS
     HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
     GUARDIAN MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.1.

4.   SMT. SHARUBAI,
     W/O APPASAB KASTI,
     AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: NASALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.

5.   SHRI ANNASAB HONNAPPA KESTI,
     AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: NASALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)
(NOTICE R5-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF M.V.ACT,
AGAINST    THE   JUDGMENT     AND  AWARD     DATED
07.03.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1463/2014, ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT RAIBAG, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.14,29,864/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
6% P.A. FROM TEH DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL
THE DATE, OF DEPOSIT & ETC. .
                                -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274
                                        MFA No. 101819 of 2015


 HC-KAR




    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                  ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This appeal is filed by the insurance company

against the judgment and award, dated 07.03.2015,

passed in M.V.C. No. 1463/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge

& Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raibag hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal') challenging quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Parties would be referred to as per their rank

before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and

clarity.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition

was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of

one Ravasab Appasab Kesti. It was stated in the claim

petition that on 05.02.2024, at about 4.00 p.m., said

Ravasab Appasab Kesti was proceeding on motorcycle

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274

HC-KAR

bearing bearing registration No.KA-23/EA-2113 as a

pillion rider towards Nasalapur village. It was stated that

respondent No.1, who is the uncle of the said Ravasab

Appasab Kesti, was riding the said motor cycle in a rash

and negligent manner and when they came near the place

of the accident i.e., Nasalapur village on Akali-Raibag

Road, respondent No.1 lost control over the motorcycle

and dashed to a roadside Neem tree and caused accident

due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

was taken to Dr.Magadum Hospital, Ankali, where he died

due to accidental injuries. It was stated in the claim

petition that the deceased was aged 30 years; the

deceased owned agricultural land and used to earn

Rs.5,00,000/- per annum by raising commercial crops like

sugarcane etc., and was maintaining the family. Due to

death of the deceased, the claimants lost earnings so as

to maintain family, his love and affection and consortium.

Hence, the claimants sought for compensation.

4. On receipt of notice of the claim petition,

respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle, filed his objection

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274

HC-KAR

statement wherein he denied the averments made in the

claim petition and contended that he was riding the motor

cycle on the left side of the road at a moderate speed and

by following the traffic rules; he was having valid driving

licence and since the vehicle was insured with respondent

No.2-insurance company, he was not liable to pay

compensation. He further contended that if at all the

Court intended to award compensation, then the liability

may be saddled on respondent No.2-insurance company.

Hence, respondent No.1 prayed dismissal of the claim

petition.

5. Respondent No.2-insurer appeared though its

counsel and filed its objection statement denying the

nature and manner of the accident and further contended

that because of the negligence of the petitioner and as

such, the insurer was not laible to pay compensation. It

was further stated that its liability, if any, was subject to

validity of the driving licence and the terms and

conditions of the insurance policy and the provisions of

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274

HC-KAR

the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, respondent No.2-insurer

prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. On behalf of the claimants, petitioner No.1 got

herself examined as P.W.1, one Shri Annasab as P.W.2,

and got marked ten documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. On

behalf of the respondent, no witnesses were examined.

However, copy of the insurance policy was marked as

Ex.R.1 on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence of

both sides, hearing the arguments of both sides, came to

conclusion that the claimants were entitled for a total

compensation of Rs.14,29,864/- on different heads as

under:

1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 13,59,864/-

2. Towards funeral expenses, transportation of dead body Rs. 15,000/-

3. Towards consortium to wife Rs. 25,000/-

4. Towards love and affection to children (claimants No.2 and 3 -

Rs.10,000/- each) Rs. 20,000/-

5. Towards loss of earning son (to petitioner No.4) Rs. 10,000/-

Total Rs. 14,29,864/-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274

HC-KAR

The Tribunal awarded the above compensation with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

claim petition till date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the

judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurance

company is before this Court.

8. The appellant-insurer is challenging the

aforesaid judgment and award mainly on the ground of

quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.

9. Sri. M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the

appellant-insurer would submit that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side as the

income of the deceased is taken at Rs.10,000/- per

month instead of Rs.7,500/- as per the chart prepared by

the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and

therefore, he would contend that the loss of dependency

requires to be recalculated by taking the income of the

deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. He would further

submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on

the conventional heads is also on the higher side. Hence,

he prays for allowing the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274

HC-KAR

10. On the other hand, Sri. K.Anand Kumar,

learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would

submit that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is

just and proper and the same requires no interference. He

would further submit that there are four dependants and

as such the deduction towards personal expenses of the

deceased ought to have been at 1/4th of the income of the

deceased, but the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd of

the income of the deceased. He further submits that the

claimants would be entitled to higher compensation under

the conventional heads i.e., 'loss of consortium', 'loss of

estate' and 'funeral expenses, in view of the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1. However, learned

counsel fairly submits that since the

respondents/claimants have not filed any appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation, the impugned judgment

and award of the Tribunal be confirmed, and the appeal

filed by the insurer be dismissed.

(2017) 16 SCC 680

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15274

HC-KAR

11. Having heard the learned counsel on both side

and on perusal of the appeal papers, with original

records, the only point that arises for consideration is,

"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side?"

12. The answer to the above point would be in the

negative for the following reasons:

(a) On perusal of the record, it is noticed that the

appellant is not seriously disputing the date and time

of the accident; the manner in which the accident

has occurred; the age of the deceased. Appellant is

disputing the income taken by the Tribunal for the

purpose of calculating the loss of dependency. There

is no material produced before the Tribunal to assess

the actual income of the deceased. Under these

circumstances, the chart prepared by the Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority has to be looked into,

according to which, the notional income is to be

taken at Rs.7,500/- per month in respect of an

accidental death of a person in the year 2014.