Karnataka High Court

Basavarajappa Basappa Harijan @ vs Shekappa S/O Bhimappa ... on 8 October, 2025

                                                   -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635
                                                         MFA No. 100807 of 2015


                         HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
                                             BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100807 OF 2015
                                           (MV-D)
                        BETWEEN:

                        1.   BASAVARAJAPPA BASAPPA
                             HARIJAN @ DODDAMANI,
                             AGE: 53 YEARS,
                             OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O: MULAKOPPA,
                             TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
                             NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
                             RANEBENNUR,
                             TQ: RANEBENNUR
                             DIST: HAVERI.

                        2.   PRASHANTH
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI                     S/O. BASAPPA HARIJAN @ DODDAMANI,
Digitally signed by          AGE: 27 YEARS,
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
                             OCC: AGRICULTURE,
DHARWAD
                             R/O: MULAKOPPA,
                             TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
                             NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
                             RANEBENNUR,
                             TQ: RANEBENNUR
                             DIST: HAVERI.

                        3.   NIRMALA
                             W/O. NAGARAJ GOMAL,
                             AGE: 31 YEARS,
                            -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635
                                  MFA No. 100807 of 2015


HC-KAR




     OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O. MULAKOPPA,
     TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
     NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
     RANEBENNUR,
     TQ: RANEBENNUR,
     DIST: HAVERI.
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SHEKAPPA
     S/O. BHIMAPPA HOLABIKONDADAVAR,
     R/O: NARASAPUR, TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
     DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.

2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
     N.K. COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR,
     HUBBALLI, BRANCH: SAGAR.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    R1-NOTICE DISPENSED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ON
EXAMINATION OF THE SAME BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT,
RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.577/2012 DATED 05.05.2014, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

    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:13635
                                        MFA No. 100807 of 2015


HC-KAR




                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

Heard Sri.Vijayakumar B.Horatti learned counsel for

the appellants as well as Sri.N.R.Kuppelur learned counsel

for respondent No.2. At request of both the learned counsel,

the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as

compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as 'the

tribunal' for brevity) through orders in MVC No.577/2012

dated 05.05.2014 the claimants therein are before this

Court.

3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the

appellants submits that in a road traffic accident that

occurred on 31.01.2012, the first appellant lost his wife and

appellants No.2 and 3 lost their mother that is

Smt.Ratnamma. Learned counsel submits that the deceased

Ratnamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for

brevity) by doing coolie work as well as by vending milk

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635

HC-KAR

was earning ₹8,000/- per month. She was contributing her

entire earnings towards the welfare of her husband and

children. But the tribunal did not award any sum as

compensation under the head loss of dependency which is

most unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby seeks to award

the compensation which the appellants are entitled to under

the head loss of dependency.

4. Learned counsel who represents respondent No.2

on the other hand submits that the second appellant is the

major son and the third appellant is the married daughter of

the deceased. Thus they were not depending upon the

earnings of the deceased as on the date of the accident and

therefore, the observation of the tribunal that they are not

entitled to compensation under the head loss of dependency

needs no interference.

5. A meticulous perusal of the impugned order

reveals an observation by the tribunal at page 13 that loss

of dependency would come to ₹1,13,400/-. However, the

tribunal awarded the said amount towards loss of estate.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635

HC-KAR

6. In the decision that is relied upon by learned

Counsel for the appellants in the case between National

Insurance Company Limited and Birender & Others1 Hon'ble

Supreme Court at para 14 held as follows:

"14. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause

(c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus:-

"9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.

10. .....The Tribunal has a duty to make an award. determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part

(2020) 11 SCC 356

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635

HC-KAR

relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.

11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a de-ceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representa-tive under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 1.e. un-der Section 2(1)(g).

12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is Inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only.

Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child."

In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635

HC-KAR

representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning."

7. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that the

appellants are having permanent jobs or have substantial

sources of income. Either it is mother or father, they

contribute their earnings towards the welfare of their

children. Hence, this Court is of the view that the first

appellant being the husband and the appellants No.2 and 3

being the children of the deceased are entitled for the

compensation to compensate the monetary loss which they

would not have sustained had the deceased lived longer.

8. The accident occurred in the year 2012.

Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is taken as

₹6,500/- per month. The deceased died at the age of 42

years. Hence, 25% of the earnings of the deceased are

required to be added towards future prospects as per the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635

HC-KAR

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi2. As the dependents are three in

number, 1/3rd of the earnings of the deceased are required

to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses

which the deceased would have incurred for herself had she

been alive as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and another3. Also, the appropriate multiplier to be applied

as per the decision referred above is '14'. With these

parameters, the compensation which the appellants would

receive under the head loss of dependency is as under:

                        Heads                    Amount in ₹
Notional income                                     6,500.00
Annual income                                      78,000.00
On adding 25% towards future prospects             97,500.00
On deducting one third towards personal            65,000.00
and living expenses

Loss   of    dependency,         on   applying    9,10,000.00
appropriate multiplier '14'




    (2017) 16 SCC 680

    (2009) 6 SCC 121

                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635



HC-KAR

9. Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of

₹9,10,000/- under the head loss of the dependency. Also

the appellants are entitled to a sum of ₹15,000/- towards

funeral expenses and ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate. The

first appellant being the husband of the deceased, is

entitled to ₹40,000/- under the head loss of spousal

consortium. Appellants No.2 and 3 being the children of the

deceased are entitled to ₹40,000/- under the head loss of

parental consortium. Thus the total compensation which the

appellants are entitled to receive is as follows:

                   Heads                        Amount in ₹
Loss of dependency                               9,10,000.00
Funeral expenses                                   15,000.00
loss of estate                                     15,000.00
loss of spousal consortium                         40,000.00

loss of parental consortium                         40,000.00

                                      TOTAL 10,20,000.00
                                 - 10 -
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:13635



HC-KAR

10. Thus by all the above discussion, it is clear that

the appellants are entitled to a sum of ₹10,20,000/- as

compensation.

11. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Ranebennur through orders in MVC

No.577/2012 dated 05.05.2014 is enhanced

from ₹1,53,400/- to 10,20,000/-.