Karnataka High Court

Sri.Mahadevayya Matapati S/O Siddayya vs Mr.Shubera Singh on 25 September, 2025

Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                                -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB
                                                            MFA No. 100634 of 2020
                                                        C/W MFA No. 100833 of 2020
                                                       MFA.CROB No. 100055 of 2020
                  HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                           DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                             PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                                               AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100634 OF 2020 (MV-D)
                                               C/W
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100833 OF 2020 (MV-D),
                              MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100055 OF 2020 (MV-D)

                 IN MFA NO. 100634/2020:
                 BETWEEN:
                 1.    SRI. MAHADEVAYYA MATAPATI S/O SIDDAYYA
                       AGE: 64 YEARS,

                 2.    SMT. JAYASHREE W/O MAHADEVAYYA MATAPATI
                       AGE: 54 YEARS,
                       BOTH ARE R/O: NO.168 B,
                       KALPARUKSHA, AVANI SRINGERI NAGAR,
                       1ST CROSS, BEHIND EVERFINE, SUPER MARKET,
                       BEGURU POST, BENGALURU-560068.
                                                                    ...APPELLANTS
Digitally        (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE)
signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad
                 AND:
Bench

                 1.    MR. SHUBERA SINGH S/O GOPAL SINGH,
                       AGE: 54 YEARS, DRIVER,
                       R/O: KATRALA, CHITRADURGA-577501.

                 2.    MR. BYRAHANUMAIAH S/O LATE BYRE GOWDA
                       AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF TATA SUMO BEARING
                       REG.NO. KA-01 B-7748, R/O: THOPPAGANAHALLI,
                       RAYSANDRA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA, BENGALURU-562117.

                 3.    REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
                       CBI MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
                       R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560032.
                       (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-01-B-7748)
                              -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB
                                          MFA No. 100634 of 2020
                                      C/W MFA No. 100833 of 2020
                                     MFA.CROB No. 100055 of 2020
 HC-KAR




4.   SMT. CHAITRA R.G.
     W/O LATE SWAROOP MAHADEVAYYA,
     D/O RACHAYYA GUTTARGIMATH,
     AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O: SHASTRI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
     WARD NO.35, TGB COLONY, BALLARI-583101.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2-SERVED)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2019 PASSED
IN MVC NO.203/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION & ETC.

IN MFA NO. 100833/2020:
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CBI MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-562117.
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.   SMT. CHAITRA R.G.,
     W/O LATE SWAROOP MAHADEVAYYA,
     D/O RACHAYYA GUTTARGIMATH,
     AGE. 32 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
     R/O SHASTRI NAGAR, I CROSS, WARD NO. 35,
     TGB COLONY, BALLARI-580024.

2.   SHUBERA SINGH S/O GOPAL SINGH,
     AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
     R/O: KATRALA, CHITRADURGA-577501.

3.   BYRAHANUMAIAH S/O LATE BYRE GOWDA,
     MAJOR, OWNER OF TATA SUMO
     BEARING NO.KA-01/B-7748,
     R/O: THOPPGANAHALLI, RYSANDRA HOBLI,
     KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA - 562117.
                             -3-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB
                                        MFA No. 100634 of 2020
                                    C/W MFA No. 100833 of 2020
                                   MFA.CROB No. 100055 of 2020
 HC-KAR




4.   MAHADEVAYYA MATPATI S/O SIDDAYYA,
     AGE: MAJOR,
     R/O: D.NO.168 B, KALPARUKSHA,
     VANI SRINGERI NAGAR, I CROSS,
     BEHIND EVERFINE, SUPER MARKET,
     BEGURU POST, BENGALURU-560068.

5.   SMT. JAYASHREE W/O MAHADEVAPPA MATPATI,
     AGE: MAJOR,
     R/O: D.NO.168B, KALPARUKSHA,
     VANI SRINGERI NAGAR, I CROSS,
     BEHIND EVERFINE, SUPER MARKET,
     BEGURU POST, BENGALURU-560068.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
NOTICE TO R2 & R3-DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.203/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III MOTOR
ACCIDENT     CLAIMS    TRIBUNAL,    BALLARI,  AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,12,01,360/- WITH INTEREST AT 9%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION &
ETC.

IN MFA.CROB NO. 100055/2020:
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHITHRA R.G.,
W/O LATE SWAROOP MAHADEVAYYA
D/O RACHAYYA GUTTARGIMATH
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
R/O: SHASTRI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
WARD NO.35, TGB COLONY, BALLARI.
                                     ...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.   SHUBERA G SINGH S/O GOPAL SINGH
     AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
     R/O: KATRALA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
                             -4-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB
                                        MFA No. 100634 of 2020
                                    C/W MFA No. 100833 of 2020
                                   MFA.CROB No. 100055 of 2020
 HC-KAR



2.   SHRI BYRAHANUMAIAH B GOWDA
     S/O LATE BYRE GOWDA
     AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF TATA SUMO
     R/O: THOPAGANAHALLI RAYSANDRA HOBLI,
     KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-562117.

3.   THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
     CBI MAIN ROAD, GANGANGAR,
     R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-32.

4.   MAHADEVAYYA S MATPATI S/O SIDDAYYA
     AGE: MAJOR,
     R/O: D.NO.168 B, KALPARUKSHA, AVANI SRINGERI NAGAR,
     1ST CROSS, BEHIND EVERFINE SUPER MARKET,
     BEGURU POST, BENGALURU-68.

5.   SMT. JAYASHREE M MATAPTI
     W/O MAHADEVAYYA S MATPATI
     AGE. MAJOR,
     R/O: D.NO. 168 B, KALPARUKSHA,
     AVANI SRINGERI NAGAR,
     1ST CROSS, BEHIND EVERFINE SUPER MARKET,
     BEGURU POST, BENGALURU-68.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

    THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100833/2020 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 04.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 203/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION    AND    SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION & ETC.

     THESE APPEALS AND THE CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON
FOR ORDERS, 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
                                        -5-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB
                                                   MFA No. 100634 of 2020
                                               C/W MFA No. 100833 of 2020
                                              MFA.CROB No. 100055 of 2020
    HC-KAR




                            ORAL JUDGMENT

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

MFA No.100634/2020 is filed by the parents of the

deceased, MFA Crob No.100055/2020 is filed by the wife of

the deceased and MFA No.100833/2020 is filed by the

insurance company challenging the quantum of

compensation awarded under judgment and award dated

4.10.2019 passed in MVC No.203/2017 on the file of learned

MACT-III, Ballari1.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are

that wife of the deceased Swaroop Mahadevayya filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 claiming compensation on the ground that her husband

Swaroop met with road accident on 3.3.2017 due to rash and

negligent driving of the Tata Sumo Vehicle Bearing

registration No.KA-01-AB-7748 by its driver. It is averred

that the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the

accident, was a Software Engineer working in Bristlecone

For short, 'Tribunal'

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB

HC-KAR

India Limited and drawing a salary of Rs.18,33,348/- per

annum.

3. The respondents appeared and filed a detailed

written statement denying the entire averments made in the

claim petition, including the age, avocation and income of

the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties.

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

Rs.1,12,01,360/- with interest at 9% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization, directing the

insurance company to make good the compensation.

Aggrieved by the same, the parents, wife and the insurance

company are before this Court challenging the quantum of

compensation.

5. Learned counsel Sri.V.S. Kalasurmath appearing

for the appellants-parents of the deceased and Sri. Praveen

Tarikar, learned counsel appearing for the cross-

objector/wife of the deceased would support the impugned

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB

HC-KAR

judgment and award of the Tribunal insofar as finding with

regard to the negligence and liability is concerned. It is

submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate Ex.P9-

Salary Slip of the deceased in its proper perspective and

wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.72,627/-

per month, which they seek to re-assess based on Ex.P9. It

is further submitted that to corroborate Ex.P9, bank

statement of the deceased along with memo dated

22.09.2025 has been produced to establish that the

deceased was earning more than Rs.12,00,000/- per annum.

It is further submitted that the award of compensation under

the conventional heads is not inconsonance with the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2 and

Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu

Ram & Others3. Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath submits that the

Tribunal has erred in apportioning the compensation at the

rate of 80% to the wife and 20% to the parents, which he

2017 (16) SCC 680

(2018) 18 SCC 130

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB

HC-KAR

seeks to modify the same by considering the fact that the

claimant-wife is a single lady and she can move on in her life

and the parents are age old persons suffering from different

ailments. Hence, they seek to modify the apportionment

appropriately by allowing the appeals filed by the parents

and wife of the deceased.

6. Per contra, Smt. Preeti Shashank, learned counsel

for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently opposes

the appeal and cross-objection filed by the parents and the

wife and submits that the Tribunal has failed to take note of

the income tax return filed by the deceased, which is part of

the record and as per income tax return, the deceased was

having income from salary at Rs.6,05,095/- per annum.

Hence, he seeks to re-assess the income based on income

tax returns marked along with Ex.P9-Pay Slip. It is

submitted that the income tax returns filed by the deceased

clearly indicates the actual income and Ex.P9-Pay Slip of the

deceased is not corroborated with any evidence. It is further

submitted that nothing has prevented the claimants from

examining the employer of the deceased, who would have

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB

HC-KAR

spoken with regard to Ex.P9. In the absence of such

evidence, he seeks to consider the income tax returns and

re-assess the income of the deceased by allowing the appeal

filed by the insurance company. He further submits that rate

of interest awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation

amount at 9% per annum is on the higher side and it has to

be reduced to 6% per annum. Hence, he seeks to dismiss

the appeals filed by the claimants.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the

respective parties and meticulously perused the material

available on record, including original records. We have given

our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced.

8. The point that would arise for our consideration in

the present appeals is:

Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for interference at the hands of this Court?

9. Answer to the above point would be in the

"affirmative" for the following reasons:

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB

HC-KAR

10. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the

accident and the liability of the Insurance Company. The

Tribunal considering oral and documentary evidence

assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.72,627/- per

month and awarded compensation. We have perused the

income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2016-17 marked

along with Ex.P9-Salary Slip. It is to be noticed that the

accident took place on 3.3.2017. Considering the same, we

are of the considered view that the income tax returns

cannot be considered for the simple reason that the said

income tax returns is for the Assessment Year 2016-17,

wherein the deceased has declared his income at

Rs.6,05,095/- and the said income was for the Financial Year

2015-16. However, the accident had occurred on 3.3.2017.

Considering the said aspect, we propose to consider Ex.P9 as

the basis for reassessment of income of the deceased. We

have also perused the bank statement produced by the

claimants along with a memo, which indicates that the

deceased was working in Bristlecone India Limited and

drawing monthly salary as per Ex.P9. The said bank

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB

HC-KAR

statement is corroborated with Ex.P9-salary slip. Therefore,

considering the same, we propose to re-assess the income of

the deceased on the basis of Ex.P9. As per Ex.P9, the

annual income of the deceased would be Rs.10,46,940/-

after deducting professional tax and in the aforesaid amount,

income tax is required to be deducted, which is calculated for

the Financial Year 2016-17 as under:

For the F.Y.2016-17, income tax slab is, upto

Rs.2,50,000/-, income tax is Nil; Rs.2,50,000 to Rs.5,00,000/-,

income tax is 10% and Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-,

income tax is 20% and above Rs.10,00,000/-, income tax is

30%. Applying the same, the income tax for the total income of

Rs.10,46,940/- works out as under:

     Upto Rs.2,50,000/-                           Nil
     Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-               Rs.25,000
     Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-              Rs.1,00,000
     Above Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. Rs.46,940/-        Rs. 14,082
                                                  ----------------
                 Total Income Tax                 Rs.1,39,082/-
                                                  ----------------

11. Accordingly, out of Rs.10,46,940/-, a sum of

Rs.1,39,082/- towards income tax has to be deducted. After

deducting the same, net income would be Rs.9,07,858/-

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB

HC-KAR

(Rs.10,46,940 - 1,39,082). There is no dispute with regard

to age of the deceased as 31 years, multiplier of 16 and also

deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of

the deceased. In terms of decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Pranay Sethi supra, the claimants would be entitled

to addition of 50% of the assessed income towards loss of

future prospects, as the deceased was a Software Engineer

working in a company having permanent job. Thus, loss of

dependency is recalculated as under:

Rs.9,07,858 + 50/100 x 16 x 2/3 = Rs.1,45,25,728/-

12. Admittedly, there are three claimants and hence,

each of the claimants are entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards

loss of consortium including 10% escalation. Under the

conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/-

towards funeral expenses including 10% escalation.

13. The Tribunal, in our considered view, has erred in

apportioning the compensation at the ratio of 80% to the

wife and 10% each to the parents. Considering the

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB

HC-KAR

submission and taking note of the fact that the claimant-wife

is a widow and no children from the said wedlock and the

parents are suffering from age old ailments, we deem it

appropriate to apportion the compensation at the rate of

60% to the wife and 20% each to the parents, which would

meet the ends of justice.

14. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding

rate of interest at 9% per annum, which appears to be on

the higher side. Normally, this Court and the Apex Court

taking note of prevailing rate of interest paid on the term

deposit by the nationalized banks, would award interest at

6% per annum. Therefore, in the present case also, the

claimants are entitled to interest on the compensation

amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

petition till realization. The claimants are entitled for the

following modified compensation:

1 Loss of dependency Rs.1,45,25,728/- 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each Rs.1,32,000/- 3 Transportation of dead body and Rs.16,500/- Funeral expenses 4 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-

                     Total               Rs.1,46,90,728/-
                                    - 14 -
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:13221-DB



HC-KAR

15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.1,46,90,728/- as against

Rs.1,12,01,360/- awarded by the Tribunal.

16. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER i. The above appeals and the cross-objection are allowed in part.

ii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,46,90,728/- as against Rs.1,12,01,360/- awarded by the Tribunal.

iii. The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment.

iv. The insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.