Karnataka High Court
Kalapana And Anr vs Srinath And Anr on 23 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
MFA No. 203839 of 2023
®
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203839 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KALPANA
W/O. ESHWAR DHARGI
EXPIRED ON 1-5-2021 BY L.RS.(A TO C)
ON IMPLEADING I.A.NO.1/2023.
1(A) DEEPIKA
D/O. ESHWAR DHARGI
AGE:33 YRS, (DOB:02-04-1990)
(W/O. ANAND KUMAR)
R/O: LIG 57, SEDAM ROAD,
BADEPUR COLONY, KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN OCC: SDC IN PRIVATE SCHOOL, KALABURAGI
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH
NOW R/О:Н.NO.2-510, DARGA ROAD,
COURT OF NEAR JAGAT CIRCLE, BHEEM NAGAR,
KARNATAKA
JAGAT KALABURAGI-585101.
1(B) RADHIKA
D/O ESHWAR DHARGI
AGE:31 YEARS, (DOB 3-6-1992)
R/О:H.NO.2-510, DARGA ROAD,
NEAR JAGAT CIRCLE, BHEEM NAGAR
JAGAT, KALABURAGI. NOW RESIDING-585101.
1(C) AMAN
S/O ESHAWAR DHARGI
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT BBA FINAL YR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
MFA No. 203839 of 2023
HC-KAR
R/O: H.NO.2-510, DARGA ROAD,
NEAR JAGAT CIRCLE, BHEEM NAGAR,
JAGAT, KALABURAGI-585102.
2. ESHWAR
S/O TUKKAPPA DHARGI
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT
R/O: H.NO.2-510, DARGA ROAD,
NEAR JAGAT CIRCLE, BHEEM NAGAR,
JAGAT, KALARUBURAGI-585101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S. SAJJANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRINATH
S/O SHANKAR SHETGAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF OFFENDING,
VEHICLE SWIFT DZIRE CAR NO.KA-25-Z-8774,
R/O. E/2/1857/10, H.NO. 2-909/48/20,
OM NAGAR, ND PHASE,
NEAR KJP SCHOOL, KALABURAGI-585105.
2. THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DOOR NO. 3, PLOT NO. 40,
MAHANTH ARCADE, MAHANTH NAGAR,
ABOVE IDBI BANK,
KALABURAGI-585105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 20.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 11.07.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.
549/2020 BY II ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KALABURAGI AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE TOTAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
MFA No. 203839 of 2023
HC-KAR
COMPENSATION AS JUST AND PROPER UNDER ALL THE
REQUIRED HEADS CONSIDERING ALL THE APPELLANTS BEING
LRS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND
WITH ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR DIRECTION THE
HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PARTIES FOUND ENTITLE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, TO MEET THE REAL ENDS OF
JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying this Court to allow the appeal by
setting aside the judgment and award dated 11.07.2023
passed in MVC No.549/2020 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') and to
enhance the total compensation with any other suitable
order or direction as deemed fit under the circumstances
of the case.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
2. The factual matrix of the claimants before the
Tribunal is that they are the parents of the deceased
Roshan, who met with an accident on 23.01.2020, while
proceeding along with his friends to attend work of
respondent No.1 in Swift Dzire car bearing No.KA-25/Z-
8774 (offending vehicle). After attending work of
respondent No.1, returning from Humnabad to Kalaburagi,
the accident occurred near Kudremukha Guddha at about
12:30 AM. It is contended that respondent No.1 was
driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and ran
into a lorry, which was going in front of the car at high
speed. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the injuries while shifting him to
Basaveshwara Hospital in an ambulance.
3. The claimants, who are the parents in the claim
petition, stated that the deceased was a brilliant student
pursuing B.Com as well as working and earning
Rs.12,000/- per month and they lost their son. The vehicle
was insured with respondent No.2 and therefore,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify respondent No.1, in
view of the insurance. The claim petition was filed
accordingly.
4. In response to claim petition, respondent
No.1/owner did not choose to appear before the Tribunal
and he was placed Ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared
and filed statement of objections, contending that the
claim petition is not maintainable. Respondent No.2 also
denied the age, income of the deceased and the manner of
the accident and denied the entire contention of the
claimants. It was contended that the accident was on
account of contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased, since he was not wearing seat belt. Hence, the
claimants are not entitled to any compensation. It was
further contended that if any liability is fixed, it is subject
to the limitations in the terms and conditions of the policy.
5. The Tribunal, having considered the pleadings,
framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence
on the account of death of the deceased. The second
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
claimant, who is the father of the deceased, was examined
as PW-1 and document Exhibits P-1 and P-12 were
marked. The respondent also examined two witnesses as
RW-1 and RW-2 and document Exhibits R-1 to R-3 were
marked.
6. The Tribunal having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, answered issue
No.1 in affirmative and referred to the accident as caused
due to rash and negligent driving of the Swift Dzire car.
While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal awarded a
total of Rs.77,000/- only under the heads of funeral
expenses and transportation charges, loss of estate and
towards loss of consortium in respect of the father. The
Tribunal declined compensation towards loss of
dependency by relying upon the judgment of the Divisional
Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268 -
A.Manavalagan vs. A.Krishnamurthy and Others, wherein
the question of awarding any amount under the head of
loss of dependency was held not to arise, since there was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
no financial dependency. In the case on hand, the father
of the deceased categorically admitted that he is working
as a government servant in the Women and Child Welfare
Department, earning a monthly salary of Rs.34,000/-. It
was also observed that the mother of the deceased,
Roshan Dhargi, died during the pendency of the claim
petition.
7. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, this appeal is filed before this Court
contending that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous
and the impugned judgment and award is arbitrary,
improper and contrary to the relevant provisions of the
beneficial legislation of the Motor Vehicles Act, ignoring the
settled position of law, declared by Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court.
8. The counsel appearing for appellants
vehemently contended in his arguments that in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and
others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, it was brought to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
the notice of this Court in paragraph Nos. 14, 15, 17 to
21, wherein it was held that the legal heirs of the
deceased could move an application for just compensation
and claim the same under Section 166 (1)(c) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, under all the required heads such as loss of
dependency and conventional heads such as consortium,
loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc., though not fully
dependent on the deceased's income.
9. The counsel further brought to the notice of this
Court the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam dated 12.09.2023 in MACA No.535/2016
connected with MACA No.3849/2016, (Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited V. VS Sujatha and
others), where in an identical claim petition, with a
modified award, compensation was granted under all
heads. Particular reference was made to paragraphs 27 to
31.
10. The counsel also vehemently contend that
though the deceased's sisters and brother were not
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
brought on record before the Tribunal, an application was
filed along with this appeal to bring them on record, as
they are other legal representatives and entitled to claim
compensation both under dependency as well as loss of
estate.
11. The counsel during the course of his argument
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Seema Rani and Others V. The Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2025
INSC 192 drawing attention to paragraphs No.9 to 12,
where it was discussed that even married daughters were
also entitled to compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court
made the observation that in the Birender's case supra
also the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when even married
sons are considered as dependents, the married daughters
also have a right to apply for compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act.
12. The counsel also relied upon judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kavita Devi and others
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
V. Sunil Kumar and another., reported in 2025 INSC 938.
The counsel referring to these judgments also vehemently
contended that in the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court
also discussed judgment in the cases of Sarla Verma and
Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National India Insurance
Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in
2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance
Company Limited V. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and
Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.
13. Further reliance was placed on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur and others Vs.
Prashant Sharma and another (2025 INSC 950), and also
relied upon judgment in neutral citation No. 2025:AHC-
LKO:45621, wherein also judgment of Birender's case
(supra), Seema Rani case (supra) and Jitendra Kumar and
another V. Sanjay Prasad and others, Civil Appeal
No.710199 of 2025 (Arising out of SLPC (C)
No.27779/2023), were discussed in detail and dismissed
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
the appeal filed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department as against the claimants vide order dated
06.08.2025.
14. The counsel referring to these judgments would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal committed an error
in relying upon the judgment of A.Manavalagan's case
(supra), wherein also the Division Bench of this Court had
not rejected the claim of the claimants in respect of loss of
estate, but had taken note of portion of income of
deceased contributed, though not to the extent of 50%,
but when the claimants were the parents considered 25%
and awarded compensation and hence, it requires
interference by this Court.
15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that it is an
admitted fact that originally the parents of the deceased
filed the claim petition. Though, the mother was
dependent, she passed away during the pendency of the
proceedings before the Tribunal. Tribunal taking note of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
the fact that the father was working as a government
servant, held that the question of considering loss of
dependency does not arise. Furthermore, the Tribunal in
detail discussed the admission of the PW-1, who has been
examined before the Tribunal and rightly did not award
any compensation under the head of loss of dependency,
but only awarded compensation under other conventional
heads. Hence, there is no error committed by the Tribunal
and the impugned order does not require any interference
by this Court.
16. Having heard both the counsel and considering
the material available on record, as well as the principles
laid down in the judgments referred above by the
appellants counsel, the points that arise for our
consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in
rejecting the claim of the claimants in holding
that question of awarding compensation under
the head 'loss of dependency' does not arises by
relying on the judgment of A.Manavalagan's case
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
(supra)? and whether it requires interference by
this Court?
ii. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not
awarding just and reasonable compensation and
whether it requires interference by this Court?
iii. Whether the impleaded appellants, who are
the sisters and brother of the deceased Roshan,
are also entitled to compensation, as they were
not brought before the Tribunal?
iv. What Order?
Points No.1 to 3:
17. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on
23.01.2020, while the deceased was returning in the
vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 along with his
friends from Humnabad to Kalaburagi. It is also not in
dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that on account
of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries
and succumbed to the injuries.
18. Having perused the material available on record
and also the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
it is seen that the Tribunal did not consider the claim of
the claimants under the head 'loss of dependency' and
awarded compensation under the head 'conventional
head'. The claimants before the Tribunal are the parents of
the deceased. Admittedly the first claimant, mother of the
deceased passed away during the pendency of the claim
petition and hence, claimant No.2 (father of deceased) is
shown as legal heir of claimant no.1 and not brought the
children of claimant no.1 as her legal heirs.
19. Admittedly, the brother and sisters of the
deceased were not brought on record before the Tribunal
and an application is filed before this Court to bring them
on record and they were brought on record. Consequently,
the appeal memo was also amended.
20. Having perused the material, the original
claimants are parents i.e., mother and father and
consequent upon the death of the mother, children of the
mother were brought on record before this Court. It is also
not in dispute that the deceased Roshan was bachelor and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
not married and he left his parents, sisters and one
brother.
21. The Tribunal while answering the issue No.2,
took note of the fact that mother passed away during the
proceedings and father was alive and also took note of the
admission of PW-1 that he is working in Women and Child
Welfare Department as Government servant and drawing
monthly salary of Rs.34,000/- in paragraph No.8 of the
judgment. It is also observed that the question that arises
is whether PW-1 is entitled for compensation under the
head of loss of dependency, when it is evident that he was
not dependent on diseased Roshan Dhargi. It is also
important to note that the deceased Roshan Dhargi
completed his B.Com degree, but claim of PW-1 is that he
was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a Pigmy collector
and doing other work. The Tribunal did not award
compensation towards loss of dependency, only on the
basis of judgment of this Court in the case of
A.Manavalgan (supra) and held that question of awarding
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
any amount under the head of loss of dependency would
not arise, if there is no financial dependency. However,
awarded compensation under conventional heads relying
upon the judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra).
22. Now, the question that would arise before this
Court is whether the Tribunal committed an error in
relying upon the judgment in A.Manavalgan (supra) while
rejecting the claim in its entirety. This Court has to take
note of the principles laid down in the judgment of
A.Manavalgan (supra). In the said case, this Court held
that the law contemplates two categories of damages on
the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss to the
estate of the deceased and the second is the pecuniary
loss sustained by the members of family of deceased. In
the first category, the action is brought by the legal
representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased
and the compensation, when recovered from part of the
assets of the estate. In the second category, the action is
brought by the legal representatives, as trustees for the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
relatives beneficially entitled. It is also discussed that
while considering the Section 168 of the MV Act, the basis
for award of compensation is the 'loss of dependency', i.e.,
loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such
claimants. The conventional amount is awarded towards
loss of expectation of life applied under the head of loss to
estate. This Court would also like to rely upon the
observations made in the said judgment and this Court in
detail discussed the same in paragraph No.19 and held
that where the claim by the legal representatives of the
deceased, who are not dependent on the deceased, then
the basis for award of compensation is loss of estate i.e.,
the loss of savings by the deceased and also discussed a
conventional sum for loss of expectation of life. A
discussion was also made that the procedure for
determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the
procedure for determination of loss of dependency. Both
involves ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalizing it by
multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. The annual
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in
the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual
savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the
case of loss to estate. In paragraph No.20, this Court
discussed with illustrations and took note of contribution of
each of the members of the family, particularly with the
note in detail discussed that loss of dependency and loss
to estate will be the compensation and particularly it is
held that, if the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are non dependent brothers/sisters having
independent income, the position would be different. As
the deceased did not have a family, the tendency would be
to spend more on oneself and savings would be hardly
15%. If the saving is taken as 15%, the annual saving
would be the multiplicand. Hence in paragraph No.20, it is
clearly held that in a case of sisters and brothers, even
non dependent savings would be 15% and in the case of
the family members, if he is a bachelor and they are not
depending on the income of the deceased, savings would
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
be 1/4th i.e., 25%. The loss to the estate in paragraph
No.20 is also in detail discussed that the same would apply
where the family consists of non dependent
spouse/children/parents, where the claimants are non
dependent brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the
estate, the savings can be taken as 15% of the income. In
paragraph Nos.21 and 22 also in detail discussed
considering the judgment of General Manager, Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas
reported in AIR 1994 SC 1631 case. In paragraph No.23
also discussion was made that, if 3/4th is deducted towards
living and personal expenses of the deceased, the savings
of the deceased would have been 25% and awarded
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. In the case on hand, the
Tribunal committed an error in outrightly rejecting the
claim of the claimants by relying upon the said judgment
and not discussed in detail regarding savings in a case of
bachelor. If, the claimants are brothers and sisters, it is
15% and if it is, parents even nondependent, it would be
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
25%. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error in
misapplication of the discussion made in the judgment of
A.Manavalgan's case.
23. No doubt the counsel appearing for the
appellant relies upon the judgment of Birender's case
(supra) and also Seema rani's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex
Court recently held that even married sons, who are not
dependents on the parents income, they are also entitled
for compensation and the same is discussed in paragraph
Nos.14, 15, 17 to 21. Even law is evolved that legal
representatives of the deceased could move application for
just compensation under Section 166 (1) (c)of MV Act,
under all the required heads, towards loss of dependency
and conventional heads, such as consortium, loss of estate
and funeral expenses.
24. The counsel also relied upon the Seema Rani's
case (supra), wherein also Hon'ble Apex Court held that
married daughters are also entitled for compensation and
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
law is gradually evolving as social transformation in the
society has changed.
25. Though, counsel relied upon several other
judgments, in the case of judgment of Seema Rani's case,
particularly in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 considering the
judgment of Birender's case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that
it is expounded that major married and earning sons of the
deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to
apply for compensation and the Tribunal must consider the
application, irrespective of whether the representatives are
fully dependent on the deceased or not and awarded
compensation, including the future prospects.
26. In the judgment of Kavita Devi's case (supra),
the claimants are wife and two children of one Lokendra
Kumar and the same will not come to the aid of appellant
counsel in the case on hand, as factual aspect is distinct
from the present case.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
27. The judgment of Kulwinder's case (supra),
which is relied upon by the counsel appearing for the
appellant also will not come to the aid of the appellant.
The counsel for appellant relied upon the judgment of High
Court of Allahabad in the case of Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department and others. In the said case, no doubt, High
Court of Allahabad in detail discussed the judgment of
Birender's case, extracting paragraph Nos.10, 10.1, 10.2,
10.3, 13 and 14 and made observation that the legal
heir/representatives of the deceased are entitled for
compensation, even if there was no dependency. This
Court also took note of the fact that law is evolving
gradually and till date it is very clear that legal
representatives, whether they are dependent or non
dependent, they are also entitled for compensation under
the head of loss of dependency and in view of the
contribution of the deceased also under the head of loss of
estate.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
28. Having considered all these materials available
on record and also the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, when the law is settled that
legal representatives, whether they are dependent or
nondependent, Court can award compensation and when
the law evolves that married daughters and married son,
though not dependent on the income of the parents, when
the parents passed away, they are entitled for the
compensation, this Court has to analyze the material and
consider the entitlement of compensation by the
claimants.
29. Admittedly, original claimants are the parents
and as on the date of death of Roshan, the mother was
also a claimant and dependent and the cause of action
goes back to the date of death and on the date of death
mother was alive and father was also alive, but he is
working in the government department and there is no
dispute to that effect. It is also important to note that in
the judgment of A.Manavalgan (supra) case, this Court in
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
detail discussed and we also took note of discussion in
detail with illustrations made by the Division Bench,
wherein it is held that in the case of brothers and sisters,
savings should be 15% and in case of parents, even
though they were not dependent, it would be 25%.
30. Now the law has evolved and the society has
transformed. In Indian society, the family typically
consists of parents and children and maybe sisters and
brothers do not come within the strict legal definition of
family, but the fact is, in the present case, the deceased
used to live along with brother, sisters and the parents.
The fact that the deceased was a bachelor and in Indian
society, even the bachelors also contribute their income
for the family and same is considered as family income for
social developments, so also for upliftment of status in
society, as same would be source of family income for
benefits of entire family members sharing the roof and the
same is also beneficial to the family consisting of sisters
and brothers as well as parents. It is also important to
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of the
Birender's case, referred by the appellants counsel takes
note of Section 166(1)(c) as well as Section 168 and also
discusses the entitlement of compensation, wherein it was
held that major sons of the deceased, even though
married and gainfully employed, can also claim
compensation under Section 166(1)(c). However, the
quantum of compensation would depend on the extent of
their dependency on the deceased parent. Hon'ble Apex
Court took note of the fact that said major sons, though
earning a livelihood are still largely dependent on their
deceased mother. It was further held that all or any of the
legal representatives of the deceased can move an
application for compensation by virtue of Section
166(1)(c). It is further held that even major married and
earning sons of deceased, being legal representatives have
a right to apply for compensation and it is bounden duty pf
the Tribunal to consider the application, irrespective of
whether they were fully dependent on the deceased or
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
not, in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Apex Court also
in the judgment, discussed Sections 166, 167, and 173 of
MV Act, regarding the amount receivable by the legal
representatives of the deceased under State
compassionate assistance to dependents of deceased
government employees and whether it is required to be
deducted as a whole or only a portion, at the stage of
determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. It is held that proper approach is to independently
determine the compensation amount and the order of
payment thereafter, subject to the legal representatives of
the deceased filing affidavit/declaration before Executing
Court, even if they have not claimed any amount as
financial assistance under the rules concerned, so also as
to become entitled to withdraw the entire compensation
amount under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hon'ble Apex Court
also took note of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) and
Sarla Varma case (supra), regarding dependent family
members and the deduction of amount from
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
compensation. This Court also has considered the
judgment in the case of Seema Rani (supra) case, which is
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants,
wherein also Birender's was discussed and categorically
held that there is no reason to exclude a married daughter
from the claim of compensation. But, also taken note of
the fact that brother and sisters both of them were
residing with the deceased. Under these circumstances, it
cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or
independent of the deceased.
31. Now, this Court also relies upon the judgment
in (2022) 14 SCC 712, N. Jayasree and Others Vs.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.,
which discussed the scope of Sections 166(1)(c), 168 and
173 that too in the case of a fatal accident claim. In that
case, the claimant was the mother-in-law of the deceased.
As per evidence, claimant found to be residing with
deceased and his family members were defendants under
his shelter and maintenance. The Supreme Court held that
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
the claimant may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but
she certainly suffered due to his death. Therefore, she is a
legal representative entitled to file a claim petition.
32. Having taken note of the evolution of law,
changing societal circumstances and the transformation of
society, the Court emphasizes that the Motor Vehicles Act
does not strictly define the term "legal representative."
Generally, a legal representative means a person who, in
law represents the estate of the deceased person and
includes any person or persons in whom the legal right to
receive compensatory benefit vests. The term "legal
representative" may also include any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such a
person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir. Legal
heirs are the persons, who are entitled to inherit the
surviving estate of the deceased. The legal heir may also
be a legal representative.
33. In the judgment of N. Jayasree (Supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the term "legal
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
representative" should be given a wider interpretation for
the purpose of Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act and it
should not be confined only to mean spouse, parents, or
children of the deceased. The MV Act being benevolent
legislation is enacted with the object of providing
monetary relief to the victim or their families. Therefore,
the Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve
the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfill its
legislative intent. Further, in order to maintain a claim
petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss
of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act, makes it clear
that every legal representative who suffers loss on account
of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should
have a remedy for realization of compensation. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in detail at paragraph 16, dealt
with the issues involved in the case and emphasized a
wider, liberal interpretation.
34. Having considered the principles laid down in
the judgments referred to above and the factual aspects of
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
the present case, it is beyond doubt that the original
claimants are the parents of the deceased. This Court also
already pointed out that, as on the date of death, the
deceased was a bachelor and his mother was alive and
dependent on the deceased. The father though was
employed in a government office and drawing a salary, but
the fact that the parents, brother and sisters were living
along with the deceased is also not in dispute and the
same is emerged in the evidence.
35. When such being the case, it is seen that the
unmarried son was contributing to the family and it is very
clear that the deceased was a B.Com degree holder. The
case of the claimants is that he was working as a Pigmy
collector and earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but no
document is placed before the Tribunal with regard to
income. In this case, the Court has to take note of the
chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority
and invariably the Court also relies upon the notional
income as per the chart. In the year 2020, the notional
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
income would be Rs.13,750/- and though, appellants
claimed his income at Rs.12,000/-, but Court is duty
bound to award just compensation.
36. No doubt, the Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the question of assessing the loss of dependency
doesn't arise, but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of N. Jayasree (supra), even in
case of non dependent married sons, married daughters,
and dependent mothers-in-law, who are depending on the
income of the deceased are entitled to claim
compensation.
37. In the case on hand, the deceased was a
bachelor and along with the parents, was staying with his
sisters and brother. When such is the case of a bachelor,
as per the judgment of Sarla Varma (supra) case, 50% is
to be taken for assessing the loss of dependency. Further,
the Division Bench of this Court in A.Manavalagan's case
(supra) observed that 15% should be taken in the case of
brothers and sisters and 25% in the case of parents. But,
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
in view of law evolved subsequent to the said judgment
and the diminishing of rupee value, so also sky-hiked
prices of essential commodities of day to day life, also in
the light of judgments referred supra, it is appropriate to
take the notional income for the assessment of loss of
dependency, particularly considering the contribution of
the bachelor son to the parents as well as sisters and
brothers. This Court opines that dependency on the
contribution should be taken, even though not entirely
dependent on the income of the deceased. Considering
Rs.13,750/- p.m. as notional income and 40% to be added
towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.19,250/-. In
view of the discussion made above, it is appropriate to
deduct 50% of the income of the deceased as he is
bachelor. Having considered the same, if 50% is deducted
from Rs.19,250/- p.m., it comes to Rs.9,625/- and
applying the relevant multiplier of 18, since, deceased is
aged about 24 years, the total comes to Rs.20,79,000/-
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
(Rs.9,625/- x 12 x 18). Hence, loss of dependency works
out to Rs.20,79,000/-.
38. Towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- is awarded
and adding escalation of 10%, it comes to Rs.16,500/-.
Towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- is awarded, and
with escalation of 10%, it comes to Rs.16,500/-.
39. The spousal of consortium does not arise, but
the mother of deceased passed away subsequent to the
filing of the claim petition and the sisters and brother were
added in this appeal, though they were not added in the
original claim petition. It is important to take note of the
fact that the deceased was a bachelor and they lost love
and affection, they are also entitled to compensation
under the head of loss of consortium. An amount of
Rs.40,000/- is awarded per claimant and as there are four
such claimants (father, two sisters, and one brother), the
total comes to Rs.1,60,000/-, after adding escalation of
10%, it comes to Rs.1,76,000/-.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
40. Accordingly, the claimants are thus entitled to
compensation of Rs.22,88,000/- as against Rs.77,000/-
awarded by Tribunal.
41. Hence, the all the points are answered in the
affirmative. In view of the discussions made above, we
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part by modifying
the judgment and award dated 11.07.2023
passed in MVC No.549/2020 by II Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, granting
compensation of Rs.22,88,000/- along with
6% interest from the date of filing of the
claim petition, till realization, as against
Rs.77,000/-.
ii) The appellants are entitled to compensation
in equal proportion, with proportionate
interest, as the claimants are father, sisters
and brother.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5753-DB
HC-KAR
iii) The insurance company is directed to
deposit the differential compensation
amount within 6 weeks from today.
iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the
Trial Court Records forthwith to enable to
the claimants to withdraw the
compensation amount on identification or
by obtaining the bank account details of
claimants and transfer the compensation to
them directly.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NJ
