Karnataka High Court
Lalitawwa W/O Raghupati @ Ishappa @ ... vs Gururaj S/O Srinivas Belur on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13703
MFA No. 103689 of 2016
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. 103689 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
LALITAWWA W/O RAGHUPATI
@ ISHAPPA @ VEERAPPA SARATHI
@ HAVERI, AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KURUBAGONDA,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI-581110.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH FOR SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. GURURAJ S/O. SRINIVAS BELUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HAUNSABHAVI,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581109.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI I FLOOR, KRISHNA AGENCY BUILDING,
P.B. ROAD, HAVERI-581106.
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
...RESPONDENTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH (BY SRI. AMIT, ADVOCATE FOR
DHARWAD
SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MISS. ANUSHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, HAVERI IN
M.V.C.NO.295/2013 DATED 20/04/2015 AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13703
MFA No. 103689 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Sri Vishwanath, who represents Sri Patil M.H.
learned counsel on record for the appellant, Sri Amit, who
represents Sri S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and Ms. Anusha, who appears through Video
Conference and represents Sri S.K.Kayakamath, learned
counsel for respondent No.2. At request of all the learned
counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. The mother of the deceased Vinodkumar (herein
after be referred to as "the deceased" for brevity), who died in
a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2012, filed a
petition claiming compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- in total. The
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri, which dealt
with the case as MVC 295 of 2013, rendered orders on
20.04.2015, holding that the claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. Projecting that she is entitled
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13703
HC-KAR
to a higher sum, the claimant therein preferred the present
appeal.
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the deceased by doing agriculture and
by attending coolie work was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by
the date of accident. However the tribunal took the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month unjustifiably.
Learned counsel states that the accident occurred in the year
2012 and for the relevant period the High Court Legal Services
Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking the notional income as
Rs.6,500/- per month and the tribunal ought to have adopted
the said figure. The learned counsel further states that the
deceased died at the age of 28 years. Hence as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and
others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another1 case, the
appropriate multiplier to be applied is '17'. However the
tribunal applied the multiplier '5' erroneously. The learned
counsel states that the Tribunal, exhibiting its opinion that the
(2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13703
HC-KAR
claimant i.e. the appellant herein is aged around 75 years
applied the said multiplier '5' and indeed the appellant was not
aged 75 years as on the date of accident and further the age
of the deceased is required to be considered. Learned counsel
further submits that the amount granted as compensation
under the conventional heads is also on lower side. The
learned counsel thereby seeks to enhance the compensation.
4. Learned counsel who represents respondent No.1
and learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 seek the
Court to dispose of the matter on merits.
5. Having considered the submission that is made by
learned counsel for the appellant, this Court considers
desirable to take the notional income of the deceased as
Rs.6,500/- per month. As rightly submitted, the age of the
deceased is required to be taken into consideration for
applying appropriate multiplier. It is not in dispute that the
deceased was aged around 28 years by the date of accident.
Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sarla Verma's case the appropriate multiplier to be applied is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13703
HC-KAR
'17'. Further as the deceased died as bachelor, in the light of
the aforementioned decision, 50% of 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. Also as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi2 case, 40% of the earnings are required to be added
towards future prospects. Thus the compensation which the
appellant is entitled to receive under the head loss of
dependency is as under:
Notional monthly income Rs.6,500/-
Annual Income Rs.78,000/-
On adding 40% towards future
Rs.1,09,200/-
prospects.
On deducting 50% towards personal
Rs.54,600/-
and living expenses.
Loss of dependency, on applying
Rs.9,28,200/-
appropriate multiplier '17'.
6. Thus the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.9,28,200/- towards loss of dependency.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13703
HC-KAR
7. Also the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial
consortium. Thus the total compensation which the appellant
is entitled to receive is as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,28,200/-
Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Towards loss of filial
Rs.40,000/-
consortium
Total Rs.9,98,200/-
8. Thus the appellant is entitled to receive a total sum
of Rs.9,98,200/- as compensation. However the tribunal
granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- only. 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,
Haveri through orders in MVC 295 of 2013
dated 20.04.2015 is enhanced from
Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.9,98,200/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13703
HC-KAR
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit except for the
period of delay of 486 days as per order in
I.A.No.1/2016.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
EM
CT-MCK
