Basavarajappa Basappa Harijan @ vs Shekappa S/O Bhimappa ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8940 Kant

Karnataka High Court

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

                                                    -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636
                                                          MFA No. 100808 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. 100808/2015(MV-D)
                         BETWEEN:

                         1.   BASAVARAJAPPA BASAPPA
                              HARIJAN @ DODDAMANI,
                              AGE: 53 YEARS,
                              TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
                              NOW AT KURUBAKERI,
                              RANEBENNUR,
                              TQ: RANEBENNUR
                              DIST: HAVERI.

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

                         3.   NIRMALA
                              W/O. NAGARAJ GOMAL,
                              AGE: 31 YEARS,
                              OCC: COOLIE,
                              R/O. MULAKOPPA,
                              TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636
                                      MFA No. 100808 of 2015


HC-KAR




     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.578/2012 DATED 05.05.2014, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636
                                      MFA No. 100808 of 2015


HC-KAR




CORAM:     THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. Heard Sri.Vijaykumar 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. The first appellant being the father, the second

appellant being the brother, and the third appellant

being the sister of the deceased Kantesh (hereinafter

referred to as 'the deceased', for brevity), filed a

petition claiming compensation of ₹25,00,000/- in

total. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Ranebennur, which entertained the case as MVC

No.578/2012, rendered orders on 05.05.2014, holding

that the appellants are entitled to the sum of

₹1,77,600/- as compensation. Projecting that they

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636

HC-KAR

are entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is

filed.

3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants

submits that the deceased as an agricultural coolie

and by doing milk vending business, was earning

₹10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal took the

notional income of the deceased as ₹4,500/- per

month only. Learned counsel states that, the Tribunal

failed to award any sum as compensation under the

head 'loss of dependency'. Learned counsel submits

that, the appellants were depending upon the earnings

of the deceased by the date of accident and therefore,

they are entitled to compensation under the head 'loss

of dependency'.

4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for

respondent No.2, on the other hand, is that appellant

No.2 is the elder brother of the deceased and he had

his own sources of earnings, and likewise, appellant

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636

HC-KAR

No.3 is the elder sister of the deceased who got

married, and thus, they cannot be termed as

dependents of the deceased.

5. No material whatsoever is projected to show that

appellants No.2 and 3 were depending upon the

earnings of the deceased by the date of accident.

However, the fact remains is that the first appellant

being the father of the deceased, can be considered to

be the dependent of the deceased in light of the fact

that the deceased had his own sources of earnings and

was a bachelor by the date of accident. Thus, this

Court holds that the first appellant is entitled to

compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.

6. The accident occurred in the year 2012. Therefore,

this Court is of the view that the notional income of

the deceased can be taken as ₹6,500/- per month. It

is not in dispute that the deceased lost his life at the

age of 26 years. Also, it is not in dispute that the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636

HC-KAR

deceased died as bachelor. Hence, as per the decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Vs

Pranay Sethi & ors.1, 40% of the earnings of the

deceased are required to be added towards future

prospects. Also, as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2, 50% of the earnings of the deceased are

required to be deducted towards personal and living

expenses which the deceased would have incurred for

himself had he been alive. As per the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case referred to

supra, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 17.

7. Thus, with the above parameters, the compensation

which the first appellant is entitled to under the head

'loss of dependency' is as follows:

(2017) 16 SCC 680

(2009) 6 SCC 121

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13636

HC-KAR

Notional income ₹6,500.00

Annual income ₹78,000.00

On adding 40% towards ₹1,09,200.00 future prospects

On deducting 50% towards ₹54,600.00 personal and living expenses

Loss of dependency on ₹9,28,200.00 applying appropriate multiplier

8. Thus the first appellant is entitled to a sum of

₹9,28,200/- under the head 'loss of dependency'.

9. Together with the said amount, the appellants are

entitled to ₹15,000 towards 'funeral expenses' and

₹15,000 towards 'loss of estate'. The first appellant is

also entitled to a sum of ₹40,000 under the head 'loss

of filial consortium'.

10. Thus, the total compensation which the appellants are

entitled to receive is as under: