Karnataka High Court

Gopamma And Ors vs Shivaraj And Ors on 29 October, 2025

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB
                                                       MFA No. 201368 of 2021


                   HC-KAR




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                            PRESENT
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                              AND
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY


                         MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201368 OF 2021 (MV-D)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   GOPAMMA W/O LATE KARABASAPPA SHAKA,
                        AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,

                   2.   UDAYKUMAR SHAKA
                        S/O LATE KARABASAPPA SHAKA,
                        AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC:LEGAL PRACTITIONER,

                   3.   ANANDKUMAR SHAKA
                        S/O LATE KARABASAPPA SHAKA,
Digitally signed        AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH     4.   RENUKA D/O LATE KARABASAPPA SHAKA,
COURT OF                AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
KARNATAKA

                        ALL R/O H.NO.15/2/218, ANAND NIVAS
                        BANK COLONY, (RAMPUR COLONY)
                        KUMBAR WADA, TQ AND DIST.BIDAR,
                        NOW AT H.NO.85 CIB COLONY, BEHIND
                        CENTRAL BUS STAND, KALABURAGI - 585 103.

                                                                 ...APPELLANTS

                   (BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB
                                  MFA No. 201368 of 2021


HC-KAR




AND:

1.   SHIVARAJ S/O SHANKAR,
     AGE: 35 YEARS,
     OCC:DRIVER OF VEHICLE BEARING
     NO.KA-38/H-7200,
     R/O. CHILLAGI VILLAGE,
     TQ. AND DIST.BIDAR PIN CODE -585 403.

2.   RAJENDRA S/O SAIBANNA PAPAINOOR,
     AGE: 36 YEARS,
     OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
     BEARING REG NO.KA-38/H-7200,
     R/O. CHILLAGI VILLAGE,
     TQ AND DIST.BIDAR PIN CODE - 585 403.

3.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     G1, G2, G12 AND G13,
     ASIAN ARCADE, NEAR ANAND HOTEL,
     S.B.TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(V/O/D. 08.12.2021 NOTICE TO R1 & R2
IS DISPENSED WITH;
BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF
Rs.41,52,503/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A. BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWRAD OF THE IIIRD
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT KALABURAGI
DATED: 18.06.2019 IN M.V.C. NO.212/2017.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
          AND
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
                              -3-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB
                                    MFA No. 201368 of 2021


HC-KAR




                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for

short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by

the judgment and award dated 18.06.2019 passed by the

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC

No.212/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 28.02.2016 at about 10.00 p.m.,

when the deceased crossing the road by walk on Bidar-

Gumpa road, near Mailoor Cross, at that time, a motor

cycle bearing registration No.KA-38/H-7200 which was

being ridden in a rash and negligent manner endangering

to human life and dashed against the deceased. As a

result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained

grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. After the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB

HC-KAR

accident, the deceased was hospitalized and during the

course of treatment he was died.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166

of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the

deceased along with interest.

4. In pursuance of service of notice, the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel

but have not filed any objection and respondent No.3

Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed

objection denying the averments made in the claim

petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case,

claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On behalf of

respondents, neither adduced any evidence nor got

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB

HC-KAR

marked any documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the

impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took

place on account of rash and negligent riding of the

offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the

deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to

a compensation of Rs.8,02,497/- along with interest at the

rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to

deposit the compensation amount along with interest.

Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

6. Sri.Sanjeev Patil, the learned counsel for the

claimants has raised the following contentions:

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident as per

the PM report and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month

by doing the business in the name of style of Kumar Audio

and Video Electronic Sales and Service Center at Mumbai.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB

HC-KAR

But the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the

deceased at Rs.8,000/- is on lower side.

b) Secondly, he has contended that as per the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI

AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the

deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an

addition of 25% of the established income towards 'future

prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was

the age of 45 years. The same shall be considered.

c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra),

the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of

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

d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

2782], each of the claimants are entitled for

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB

HC-KAR

compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of

love and affection and consortium'.

e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing

the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company has raised the following counter-

contentions:

a) Firstly, even though the claimants have claimed

that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, they

have not established the same. Except for producing the

salary certificate at Ex.P.9, the claimants have not

examined the author of the said documents. Therefore,

the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the

deceased notionally.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB

HC-KAR

b) Secondly, since the claimants have failed to

establish the income of the deceased, they are not entitled

for compensation towards 'future prospects'.

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence and considering the age and

avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he

prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that Nandkumar died in the

road traffic accident occurred on 28.02.2016 due to rash

and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing registration

No.KA-38/H-7200 by its driver.

10. Even though the claimants have claimed that

deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, except

producing the salary certificate at Ex.P.9 but they are not

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB

HC-KAR

examined the author of the documents. As per the

guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2016,

the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at

Rs.8,750/- p.m. At the time of accident, deceased was

aged about 45 years, 25% has to be added on account of

future prospects. The deceased was bachelor, we are of

the opinion that, 50% of the income has to be deducted

for personal expenses and remaining amount has to be

taken as his contribution to the family and multiplier

applicable to his age group is '14'. Thus, the claimants are

entitled to compensation of Rs.9,18,792/- (Rs.8,750/- x

25%) (Rs.10,938/-*12*14*1/2th) on account of 'loss of

dependency'.

11. In addition, the claimants are entitled to

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate'

and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral

expenses'.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB

HC-KAR

12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE'

(supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased is

entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the

head of 'loss of filial consortium', claimant Nos.3 and 4,

brother and sister of the deceased are entitled for

compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss

of consortium'.

13. The compensation of Rs.1,72,497/- awarded

by the Tribunal under the head of 'medical expenses' is as

per the medical bills produced by the claimants. The same

is just and reasonable.

14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

- 11 -

                                               NC: 2025:KHC-K:6373-DB



HC-KAR




            Compensation                  Amount in
            under different
                                               (Rs.)
                Heads

           Loss of                              9,18,792.00
           dependency

           Funeral expenses                      15,000.00

           Loss of estate                        15,000.00

           Loss of filial                        80,000.00
           consortium

           Loss of consortium                    80,000.00

           Medical Expenses                     1,72,497.00

                        Total                  12,81,289/-