Smt Veena W/O Ranganath Koraddi vs Ramanagouda S/O Anandagouda Patil
2025 Latest Caselaw 7984 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Veena W/O Ranganath Koraddi vs Ramanagouda S/O Anandagouda Patil on 3 September, 2025

Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                                   -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:11326-DB
                                                            MFA No. 102565 of 2020


                       HC-KAR




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                          AT DHARWAD
                            DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                                 PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                                                   AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                                 M.F.A. NO.102565 OF 2020 (MV-D)
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.    SMT. VEENA W/O. RANGANATH KORADDI,
                             AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,


                       2.    KUMARI VARSHA RANGANATH KORADDI,
                             AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,


                       3.    KUMAR JAGANATH
                             S/O. RANGANATH KORADDI,
Digitally signed by
                             AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
                             SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
Location: High Court
of Karnataka,                MINORS, REP. BY M/G APPELLANT NO.1.
Dharwad Bench



                       4.    SMT. TARABAI VEERAPPA KORADDI,
                             AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
                             ALL ARE R/AT: DWARAKANTH GALLI,
                             TQ: JAMKHANDI AND
                             DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.
                                                                       ...APPELLANTS
                       (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC-D:11326-DB
                                      MFA No. 102565 of 2020


HC-KAR




AND:


1.   RAMANAGOUDA S/O. ANANDAGOUDA PATIL,
     AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
     R/AT: SAI MOTORS, NO.10, ROOP LAND,
     KHB ROAD, BAGALKOTE-587101.


2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
     MELLIGERI COMPLEX,
     KALADAGI ROAD, OPP. COURT,
     BAGALKOTE-587101.
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2;
     NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)


       THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1)
OF   MOTOR    VEHICLES    ACT,     PRAYING   TO   ENHANCE   THE
COMPENSATION AND AWARD COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY
THE APPELLANTS BY MODIFYING AWARD DATED 24.09.2019, IN
MVC NO.461/2011 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI AND
MEMBER,     MOTOR    ACCIDENT       CLAIMS   TRIBUNAL    NO.XI,
JAMAKHANDI, AT: JAMAKHANDI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.


       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
           AND
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                                          -3-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:11326-DB
                                                 MFA No. 102565 of 2020


    HC-KAR




                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

This is a claimants' appeal challenging the judgment and

award dated 24.09.2019 passed in MVC.No.461/2011 by the I

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamakhandi

and MACT-XI, Jamkhandi1.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that

the claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the death

of Ranganath in a road accident dated 29.12.2009. It is averred

that the deceased Ranganath was an agriculturist and also doing

fertilizer business, he was aged about 36 years at the time of the

accident and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to his

untimely death, the family members of the deceased lost

financial as well as emotional dependency and hence, filed claim

petition seeking compensation before the Tribunal.

3. The respondents opposed the claim petition and

denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased.

4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence. Claimant No.1

examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.131.

for short, 'Tribunal'

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11326-DB

HC-KAR

Respondents did not adduce oral evidence, with consent, got

marked Ex.R.1. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of

Rs.16,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

from the date of order till the deposit of the amount. Being

aggrieved, present appeal is filed seeking higher compensation.

5. Sri.Siddappa S.Sajjan, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing

the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. The

deceased was an agriculturist and also a businessman and in

support of the same, the appellants have produced Exs.P.8 to

Ex.P.50. Hence, he seeks to reassess the income of the

deceased. It is also submitted that the deceased was aged about

36 years at the time of the accident, hence, the claimants are

entitled to an addition of 40% under the head of loss of future

prospects of the deceased. The appropriate deduction is 1/4th

towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus,

he seeks to allow the appeal.

6. Sri.S.S.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned

judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the award

of compensation determined by the Tribunal on all heads is just

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11326-DB

HC-KAR

and proper and does not call for any interference. Thus, he prays

for dismissal of the appeal.

7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the parties and perused the appeal papers along with the

material available on record.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions advanced on both sides. The only point that arises

for consideration in this appeal is, whether the impugned

judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference in

this appeal?

9. The undisputed facts are that, on 29.12.2009 one

Ranganath was travelling in TATA Indica car bearing Reg.No.KA-

29/MA-9990 from Belgaum to Bagalkot. The driver of the said

car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with the high

speed and dashed to the truck bearing Reg.No.MH-04/AL-6732

which resulted in an accident and due to the impact of the said

accident, said Ranganath sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to those injuries. It is also undisputed fact that, at

the time of the accident, the deceased Ranganath was an

agriculturist and also having a business of fertilizer. On perusal

of material available on record, there is no any evidence placed

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11326-DB

HC-KAR

before the Tribunal to prove the exact income of the deceased.

Hence, in our consideration, the monthly income of Rs.12,000/-

assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper.

10. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of

Rs.16,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

On perusal of the judgment and award of the Tribunal, we are of

the view that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any

compensation under the head of loss of future prospects of the

deceased. It is not in dispute that, at the time of the accident,

the deceased was aged about 36 years and hence the claimants

are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future

prospects of the deceased. Keeping in mind the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2 we are of the

considered view that the claimants are entitled to an addition of

40% to the assessed income of the deceased under the head of

loss of future prospects.

11. Taking note of the fact that the claimants are four in

number i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased, the

appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses

2017(16) SCC 680

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11326-DB

HC-KAR

of the deceased would be 1/4th. The deceased was aged 36 years

at the time of the accident, hence, the appropriate multiplier

would be 15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified

compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under:

Rs.12,000 + 40% x 12 x 15 - ¼ = Rs.22,68,000/-

12. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses and along with said heads, the claimants are entitled to

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

13. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to modified

compensation on the following heads:

                 Particulars                        Amount
                                                    (in Rs.)
Loss of dependency                                  22,68,000/-
Loss of estate                                         15,000/-
Funeral expenses                                       15,000/-
Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 X 4)                   1,60,000/-
                     Total                         24,58,000/-

14. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.24,58,000/- as against Rs.16,70,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal.