Karnataka High Court

The Reliance General Insurance Company vs Smt. Shantawwa W/O. Danappa Ramdurg on 10 October, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698
                                                           MFA No. 101802 of 2017


                         HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
                                            BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101802 OF 2017 (MV-D)

                        BETWEEN:

                        THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
                        ISSUING OFFICE AT MAHADEV PLAZA,
                        CTS NO.10719, SY. NO.1357/A,
                        NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE NEHRU NAGAR,
                        BELAGAVI-590001,
                        INSURER OF TATA WINGER BEARING
                        REG NO.KA-26-M-9299
                        VIDE POLICY NO. 1402532311000050
                        VALID FROM 21.01.2013 TO 20.01.2014
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
                                                                       ...APPELLANT
                        (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

                        AND:
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
                        1.   SMT. SHANTAWWA
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH               W/O. DANAPPA RAMDURG,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
                             AGE: 28 YEARS,
                             OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                             R/O: LINGADAL VILLAGE,
                             TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

                        2.   MASTER MANJUNATH
                             S/O. DANAPPA RAMDURG,
                             AGE: 10 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT,
                             (SINCE BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY NEXT
                             FRIEND MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER
                             PETITIONER NO.1 SMT. SHANTAWWA
                             W/O. DANAPPA RAMDURG)
                           -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698
                                  MFA No. 101802 of 2017


HC-KAR




3.   SMT. LAXMAWWA
     W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA RAMDURG,
     AGE: 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL,
     R/O: LINGADAL VILLAGE,
     TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

4.   SMT. DEVAKKA
     D/O. HANUMANTHAPPA RAMDURG,
     AGE: 58 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O: LINGADAL VILLAGE,
     TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

5.   MR. ASHFAQ
     S/O. KHADARSAB MAKANDAR,
     AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: PLOT NO.12, AZAM NAGAR,
     BELAGAVI-590001,
     (OWNER OF TATA WINGER BEARING
     REG. NO. KA-26/M-9299)
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1, R3 & R4 SERVED;
 R2-IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1;
 R5-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)


     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND HEAR
THE PARTIES AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.11.2016 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VI, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.1897/2014 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST BY REDUCING THE
COMPENSATION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698
                                       MFA No. 101802 of 2017


HC-KAR




CORAM:     THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. Heard Sri. G. N. Raichur, learned counsel for the

appellant, who appears through Video Conference.

Though notice was served upon respondents 1 to 4,

they failed to represent. Notice to respondent No.5

stood dispensed with.

2. The award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-VI, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal', for brevity) in MVC No.1897/2014, dated

02.11.2016 is under challenge in this appeal. The

Insurance Company, upon whom the liability is

fastened, preferred the present appeal.

3. Arguing the matter, Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel

for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal awarded

exorbitant sum as compensation under all heads and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698

HC-KAR

therefore, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel

submits that the first claimant is the wife, the second

claimant is the minor son, the third claimant is the

mother, and the fourth claimant is the sister of the

deceased Danappa Hanumanthappa Ramdurg

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased', for brevity),

who died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the

year 2013. The Tribunal, while assessing the

compensation which is payable under the head 'loss of

dependency', added 50% of the total income towards

future prospects. Learned counsel submits that the

Tribunal observed that the claimants failed to produce

any positive evidence with regard to the income.

Having said that, adding 50% of the earnings towards

future prospects is unjustifiable. Learned counsel

submits that, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi &

ors.1, only 40% of the earnings are required to be

(2017) 16 SCC 680

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698

HC-KAR

added towards future prospects. Learned counsel also

submits that the amount granted as compensation

towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses is

also on higher side. Learned counsel thereby seeks to

pass necessary orders reducing the sum that is

awarded as compensation to the claimants.

4. The fact that the deceased died in a road traffic

accident that occurred in the year 2013 is not in

dispute. As per the version of the claimants, deceased

was working as a Mason under Class-I Contractor and

was earning Rs.400/- per day. Their version is also

that the deceased was engaged in cultivating lands

and was earning Rs.84,000/- per annum from

agriculture. However, as rightly observed by the

Tribunal, no positive evidence whatsoever was

produced by the claimants to establish the occupation

and earnings of the deceased as on the date of the

accident.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698

HC-KAR

5. The Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased

as Rs.6,000/- per month. However, for the relevant

period, for settlement of claims, the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income

as Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court

considers it desirable to take the notional income as

Rs.7,000/- per month. The fact that the deceased died

at the age of 35 years is not in dispute. Therefore, as

per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi's case (supra), as rightly contended by learned

counsel for the appellant, 40% of the earnings are

required to be added towards future prospects.

6. There is no evidence on record to show that the fourth

claimant, i.e., the sister of the deceased, was

depending upon the earnings of the deceased on the

date of the accident. Therefore, the wife, the minor

son, and the mother alone should be considered to be

the dependents of the deceased.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698

HC-KAR

7. Thus, as the dependents are three in number, one-

third of the earnings of the deceased are required to

be deducted towards the 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 v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2. The appropriate multiplier to be applied

as per the aforementioned decision is 16. Thus, with

these parameters, the compensation which the

claimants are entitled to receive under the head 'loss

of dependency' is as under:

Notional income per month Rs.7,000.00

Annual income Rs.84,000.00

On adding 40% towards future Rs.1,17,600.00 prospects

On deducting one-third towards Rs.78,400.00 personal and living expenses

Loss of dependency on applying Rs.12,54,400 appropriate multiplier 16

(2009) 6 SCC 121

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698

HC-KAR

8. Thus, the claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to a sum of

Rs.12,54,400/- towards 'loss of dependency'.

9. Together with the said amount, the claimants are

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

Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. The first

claimant, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to

Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of spousal consortium'. The

second claimant, being the son of the deceased, is

entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of parental

consortium'. The third claimant, being the mother of

the deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss

of filial consortium'. Further, the appellants are

entitled to Rs.36,000/- towards the medical

expenditure incurred.

10. Hence, the compensation which the claimants are

entitled to receive under each head is as under:

                          Head                          Amount (Rs.)

         Loss of dependency                              12,54,400.00

                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698



HC-KAR




         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

         Loss of filial consortium                    40,000.00

         Medical expenditure                          36,000.00

         Total                                     14,40,400.00

11. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,07,000/- as

compensation. However, the amount which the

claimants are entitled to as compensation in the light

of the aforementioned discussion is Rs.14,40,400/-.

12. Also, the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall carry

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

petition till the date of deposit and not 9% per annum.

13. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following

order:

- 10 -

                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:13698



HC-KAR




                            ORDER


     i.     The appeal is allowed.

     ii.    The compensation that is granted by the Motor