Karnataka High Court
Smt. Radha Rajashekhar Gaonkar vs Shri Anand Tippanna Sonappanavar on 18 September, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
MFA No. 103784 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH 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.103784 OF 2023 (MV-D)
C/W. M.F.A. NO.102632 OF 2023 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.103784/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RADHA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR GAONKAR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. DABBESAL-581359, POST. BALAGAR,
TALUKA: YALLAPUR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA.
2. RAJASHEKHAR S/O. NARASIMHA GAONKAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
R/O. DABBESAL-581359, POST. BALAGAR,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
TALUKA: YALLAPUR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA.
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench 3. YOGESH RAJASHEKHAR GAONKAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL,
R/O. DABBESAL-581359, POST. BALAGAR,
TALUKA: YALLAPUR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA.
SINCE ABNORMAL REPRESENTED BY
GUARDIAN/MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI ANAND TIPPANNA SONAPPANAVAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
MFA No. 103784 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/O. HALLIGERI-580118,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. V. YAJI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 30.03.2023 IN MVC NO.2302/2021 PASSED BY THE XI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
BELAGAVI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.19,34,400/- TO RS. 2,00,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANTS IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.102632/2023
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-580020,
REP. BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RADHA RAJASHEKHAR GAONKAR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DABBESAL, POST. BALAGAR,
TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581337.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
MFA No. 103784 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. RAJASHEKHAR NARISIMBA GAONKAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. DABBESAL, POST. BALAGAR,
TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581337.
3. YOGESH RAJASHEKHAR GAONKAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. DABBESAL, POST. BALAGAR,
TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581337.
SINCE ABNORMAL REPRESENTED BY
GUARDIAN/MOTHER.
4. ANAND TIPPANNA SONAPPANAVAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. HALLIGERI,
TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580118.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2023
PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.2302/2021 SADDLING
THE LIABILITY TO AN EXTENT OF 80% ON THIS APPELLANT. BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IT IS PRAYED THAT THE LIABILITY OF
THIS APPELLANT BE DETERMINED AT 40% HOLDING THAT THE
RIDER OF THE INSURED MOTOR BIKE WAS NEGLIGENT AND
CONTRIBUTED TO AN EXTENT OF 40% AS AGAINST 80%
DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND MODIFY THE AWARD
AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, 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
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
MFA No. 103784 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 102632 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
MFA No.103784/2023 is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation and shifting of entire liability on
the Insurance Company, whereas MFA No.102632/2023 is filed
by the Insurance Company challenging saddling of 80% liability
on it. Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and
award dated 30.03.2023 passed in MVC No.2302/2021 on the
file of XI Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi1.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that
on 11.07.2021 at about 8:30 p.m., the deceased-Prasad
Gaonkar was proceeding from Dharwad to Haliyal riding a
motorcycle bearing No.KA-31/Y-5533 along with pillion rider-
Raghavendra Hedge. When he reached near the spot of the
accident i.e. Sai Dhaba, rider of another motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-25/HB-6930 came from Halligeri towards
Dharwad in a high speed. It was ridden in rash and negligent
manner, due to which he lost control on the motorcycle and
dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which,
For short, 'Tribunal'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was
shifted to Government Hospital, Dharwad and after first aid, he
was shifted to SDM, Dharwad wherein he was admitted as an
inpatient. On 16.07.2021, he succumbed to the injuries while
under treatment. It is averred that the deceased was aged 23
years at the time of the accident, he was studying in 2nd year
M.Sc. and also working as a Nodal Lab Assistant at KIMS Hubballi
and earning a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. The claimants,
who are the parents and sibling of the deceased have filed claim
petition seeking compensation.
3. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition. It is averred that the
accident is caused due to the negligence of the deceased. They
have denied age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is
further contended that the deceased and the pillion rider were
not wearing helmet at the time of accident. As a result, violating
Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also contended that
the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurer of
another motorcycle. Therefore, the petition was bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that the offending
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
vehicle did not have valid RC and FC and the rider of the
motorcycle was not in possession of an effective DL at the time
of accident. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The claimant No.1 examined PW1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P38. The respondents did not adduce oral evidence and
got marked Exs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal on appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.19,34,400/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization by recording a
finding that deceased contributed to the accident to the extent of
20% by directing the Insurance Company to pay 80% of the
total compensation. Being aggrieved, the claimants as well as
the Insurance Company are before this Court challenging the
quantum of compensation.
5. Smt.Sunanda P.Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in
holding that the deceased has contributed to the accident and
saddled liability at 20%. It is submitted that the deceased was
highly qualified earning Rs.31,000/- per month as is evident
from Exs.P15 to P18. It is submitted that the deceased was 2nd
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
year M.Sc. student and was working during the Covid period and
was earning, which demonstrate that he had a capacity to earn
more than Rs.31,000/- per month. It is submitted that the rider
of the offending motorcycle has given statement before the
police which is marked as Ex.P8, in which he admits that he was
negligent and caused the accident. Hence, the entire liability is
required to be shifted on the rider of the offending motorcycle
and the Insurance Company is liable to pay total enhanced
compensation. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal filed by the
appellants-claimants.
6. Per contra, Sri. S.V.Yaji, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has
erred in recoding a finding that the rider of the motorcycle was
negligent to the extent of 80% and the said finding is contrary to
the Ex.R1-sketch on record. It is submitted that the deceased
rider was having 10 feet on his left side however, he came on his
right and caused the accident. Hence, the entire liability should
be on the deceased. It is further submitted that charge sheet is
filed on the deceased as well as rider of the motorcycle which is
insured with the appellant and taking note of the same, at least
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
50:50 shall be on the rider of the offending motorcycle and the
deceased. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant-Corporation, learned counsel for the cross
objectors-claimants and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to
the submissions advanced.
8. The point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal calls for any interference?"
9. Answer to the above point would be in the "partly
affirmative" for the following reasons:
(a) The material on record indicate that one Prasad
Rajashekhar Gaonkar was proceeding on motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-31/Y-5533 from Dharwad
to Haliyal on 11.07.2021 along with pillion rider. At
that time, another motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-25/HB-6930 ridden by its rider in a rash and
negligent manner came from opposite direction and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased resulted in
he sustaining grievous injuries and later succumbed
to the injuries. The Tribunal considering the oral and
documentary evidence recorded the finding that the
deceased was partly negligent and contributed to the
accident and accordingly apportioned liability of 20%
on him. The contention of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company is that the collision is head-on
collision and Ex.R1 indicates that the deceased
crossed the middle of the road, came extremely to
his right and dashed the opposite motorcycle. Hence,
the entire liability is required to be saddled on him.
We have perused the Ex.R1-the sketch produced
along with the charge sheet. The sketch indicates
that the spot of accident is approximately middle of
the road. That itself cannot be a basis to come to
conclusion that the deceased was negligent and
caused the accident in the absence of oral testimony
to the effect that the deceased crossed middle line of
the road and dashed to the opposite motorcycle.
Admittedly, the charge sheet is filed by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
jurisdictional police against the deceased as well as
the rider of the offending motorcycle. It is to be
noticed that the Insurance Company has not raised
the aspect of contributory negligence in their written
statement filed before the Tribunal nor adduced any
evidence to that effect. Hence, the contention of the
appellant-Insurance Company with regard to the
contributory negligence of the deceased in entirety
cannot be accepted. Similarly the contention of the
claimants to saddle entire liability on the Insurance
Company also cannot be accepted as the Tribunal
taking note of the charge sheet material and Ex.P8-
the statement of the rider of the offending
motorcycle has apportioned contributory negligence
at the ratio of 20% and 80% on the deceased as well
as on the rider of the offending motorcycle. The said
finding and apportionment of the Tribunal with
regard to the negligence is neither perverse nor
contrary to the evidence on record calling for
interference.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
(b) Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned,
the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/-. The claimants in order to prove the
income of the deceased placed reliance on Exs.P15 to
P18. We have perused the said exhibits, pleadings
and other evidence on record, it can be noticed that
the deceased was 2nd year M.Sc. student at the time
of accident. The aforesaid exhibits though indicate
about payment of Rs.31,000/- to the deceased for
some period, those documents cannot be the sole
basis to assess the income of the deceased.
Admittedly the deceased was not working and he was
pursuing his higher education. Considering the merits
and the educational qualification of the deceased, we
are of the considered view that the assessment of
income by the Tribunal is on lower side. The accident
is of the year 2021 and as per the notional income
chart prepared by the KSLSA for the unskilled labour,
this Court and the Tribunal assessed the income at
Rs.14,250/- per month. Taking note of the
educational qualification and potentional earning
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
capacity of the deceased, we notionally assess the
income of the deceased at Rs.22,000/- per month.
The claimants are entitled to an addition of 40% of
the assessed income under the head of loss of future
prospects of the deceased. The appropriate multiplier
would be '18' and deduction would be 50% towards
the personal and living expenses of the deceased as
he was a bachelor at the time of accident. Each of
the claimants are entitled to a consortium of
Rs.44,000/- which includes 10% escalation.
Similarly Rs.16,500/- under the head of loss of
estate and Rs.16,500/- towards transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses which includes 10%
escalation. The compensation carries interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization of the amount. The finding of the Tribunal
with regard to the liability is unaltered. Hence, the
claimants are entitled to the following modified
compensation:
1 Loss of dependency (Rs.22,000 + 40% Rs.33,26,400/-
x 12 x 18 - 50%)
2 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each Rs.1,32,000/-
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
to appellants No.1 to 3)
3 Transportation of dead body and Rs.16,500/-
Funeral expenses
4 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
Total Rs.34,91,400/-
Less: 20% contributory negligence Rs.6,98,280/-
Total compensation Rs.27,93,120/-
10. For the aforementioned reasons we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.103784/2023 filed by the claimants
is allowed in part.
ii. MFA No.102632/2023 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed.
iii. The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal in MVC.No.2302/2021 dated
30.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal is hereby
modified and the claimants are entitled to
total compensation of ₹27,93,120/-.
iv. The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
v. The Insurance Company shall deposit the
aforesaid compensation amount along with
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12641-DB
HC-KAR
accrued interest before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
vi. The apportionment & disbursement of the
aforesaid compensation shall be made as per
award of Tribunal.
vii. Registry shall transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
viii. Draw modified award accordingly.
ix. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
CLK /CT-AN
