Karnataka High Court
Sayawwa And Ors vs Mallappa Sidramappa And Anr on 26 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
MFA No. 201070 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, ®
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH 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.201070 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN
1. SAYAWWA W/O RAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
2. RAYAPPA MALAKRI PUJARI,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
3. SUNIL MALAKARI PUJARI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA 4. AKSHATA D/O MALAKARI PUJARI,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ALL ARE RESIDENT OF JAKANUR,
TALUK. JAMAKAHANDI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MALLAPPA SIDRAMAPPA NEMAGOUDAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. GURLAPUR, TALUK GOKAK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
MFA No. 201070 of 2021
HC-KAR
DISTRICT BELAGAVI-590 001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
1ST FLOOR, HERALAGI BUILDING,
BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2020
PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT-XV, AT VIJAYAPUR, IN MVC NO.1539/2015.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 04.09.2025 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
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
MFA No. 201070 of 2021
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This appeal is by the claimants/appellants seeking for
enhancement and calling in question the judgment and
award dated 01.09.2020 in MVC No.1539/2015, passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV at Vijayapura,
on the ground of fastening the liability on the owner of the
tractor and the trailer, as well as quantum.
2. The date of accident, involvement of the
vehicle, death of Malakari son of Rayappa Pujari are not in
dispute. The only dispute is with regard to fastening the
liability on the owner of the tractor and trailer and
inadequate compensation.
3. Heard Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned
Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Bapugouda
Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 and Smt. Preeti Patil Melakundi, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
4. Sri Sanganagouda V.Biradar with all vehemence
submitted that the deceased was sitting on the edge of
road leading from Jambagi to Galagali near Nandi School,
at that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-49-T-
0518 and trailer bearing its registration No.KA-49-T-6897,
loaded with sugar cane being driven by the driver of the
tractor came in a rash and negligent manner in a high
speed and lost control over the vehicle. As a result, the
trailer loaded with the sugar cane fell on the deceased
causing severe injuries resulting in death of Malkari. The
Tribunal, while answering the question of liability to pay
the compensation, at paragraph 24 has stated that, both
trailer and tractor stands in the name of respondent No.1
and they are duly insured. However, going through the
definitions stated in the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act, at paragraph No.25 reasoned that, the tractor was not
insured and the trailer which cannot move on its own
being propelled by the tractor. In those circumstances,
since the tractor was not insured, hence, the owner is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this reasoning is
incongruent under law.
5. It is further contended that, the part of the
vehicle loaded with sugar cane, which fallen on the
deceased, was the trailer which was duly insured, as on
the date of incident. However, mere fact that the trailer
which was propelled by the tractor was not insured.
Hence, it is not a circumstance to exempt the insurance
company from paying the compensation.
6. So far as quantum is concerned, the learned
counsel with all vehemence submitted that the date of
accident was 2014. The deceased was aged 50 years as on
the date of death and was doing Coolie work and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken income at
Rs.7,500/-, however, not added any amount towards
Future Prospectus and the same requires re-consideration.
Future Prospectus atleast at the rate of 25% is required to
be considered. The deduction towards expenditure and
personal expenses be deducted at 1/4th instead of 1/3rd
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
and the compensation awarded in other conventional
heads are also on the lower side which requires
re-consideration. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal
and set aside the findings of fastening the entire liability
on the owner and instead, direct the Insurance Company
to pay the compensation by enhancing the compensation.
7. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the appellants/claimants, Smt. Preeti Patil
Melakundi with all vehemence submitted that the learned
single judge of this Court in MFA No.201601/2016,
referred the matter in similar circumstances to the Division
Bench to answer on the following legal issues:
a) Whether the liability of the Insurer stands
absolved if all the components of the goods
carriage i.e., the tractor or trailer(s) are
not insured.
Or
b) Whether the liability of the Insurer stands
attracted if any one of the components of
the goods carriage i.e., the tractor or the
trailer/s are insured
Or
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
c) In cases of an accident involving a tractor-
trailer where the tractor is insured and the
trailer is uninsured, whether the liability of
the insurer would stand restricted only to
the extent of the share of the owner of the
tractor, making the owner of the trailer
would be responsible for the remaining
extent (i.e., if 50% of the compensation
would have to be paid by the insurer and
the remaining 50% by the owner of the
trailer).
d) For the instant case, where an accident has
occurred involving a tractor and two
trailers -- in which the tractor and one of
the two trailers are uninsured but only one
trailer is insured -- whether the owner of
the uninsured tractor and the uninsured
trailer would be liable to pay 2/3rd of the
compensation and the insurer of the trailer
would be liable to pay only 1/3rd of the
compensation.
8. Accordingly, the liability fastened on the owner
by the Tribunal is sound and reasonable and it does not
call for any interference at the hands of this court. As in
the case on hand, only one of the trailers was insured,
which falls for consideration in terms of question number
No.C of the above said writ petition. Accordingly, sought
to dismiss the appeal on the liability.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
9. So far as compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal in the absence of any proof of income taken the
income at the rate of Rs.7,500/-, according to the income
fixed under the chart and considering the number of
dependants, though there are four sons, one of the son
was aged 25 years and another 22 years and all the sons
are major, however taken 2/3rd which does not call for
interference and accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as
trial court papers, the only points that would arise for our
consideration is:
i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in
fastening the liability on respondent
No.1 - owner of the tractor as well as
trailer, when the trailer which fallen on
the deceased admittedly insured?
ii) Whether the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is befit within the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
expression just compensation and call
for any interference?
11. Our answer to above points for consideration
are as under:
Point No.1 - in negative
Point No.2 - partly in affirmative.
Point No.1 :
12. Having considered the factual aspects of the
case, the specific case of claimants is that trailer No.KA-
49/T-6897 loaded with sugarcane, being driven by the
driver of the tractor No.KA-49/T-0518 in a rash and
negligent manner, an accident was occurred, and trailer
only fell on the deceased, who was sitting at the edge of
road. The factual issue is not in dispute and only issue is
that tractor is not insured, but only trailer is insured and
tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the
owner and meager compensation was awarded.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
13. The counsel appearing for the claimants would
vehemently contend that the approach of the tribunal that
when the tractor was not insured and without the tractor,
the trailer cannot be moved and though it is a separate
vehicle, there should be separate policy to the tractor and
trailer as per Clause A(3) of Section 64B of the Insurance
Act and comes to the conclusion that if any one is not
insured, it is to be treated that the owner has violated the
terms and conditions of the policy and hence directed the
owner to pay the compensation.
14. The counsel appearing for the respondents
mainly relies upon the judgment of learned Single Judge.
Wherein a reference is made to the Division Bench in the
MFA No.201601/2016 raising some of the points for
consideration by the Division Bench. Admittedly, though
reference was made and the same is not decided before
the Division Bench and the same is also not an issue
before this Court, in view of the reference made to
Division Bench since same is not assigned to this Court
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
and point for consideration which were referred by the
learned Single Judge till date not answered. Hence, said
reference will not comes to the aid of the insurance
company.
15. Now this Court has to consider the material on
record, whether the tribunal committed an error in
fastening liability on the owner. We have already pointed
out that no dispute with regard to the factual aspects is
concerned. When such being the case, this Court has to
consider the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and hence,
this Court would like to rely upon certain provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act :
Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, 'M.V.Act') defines 'Motor Vehicle' as follows :
"motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any
mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use
upon roads whether the power of propulsion is
transmitted thereto from an external or internal
source and includes a chassis to which a body has
not been attached and a trailer; but does not
include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a
vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
factory or in any other enclosed premises or a
vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with
engine capacity of not exceeding1 [twenty-five
cubic centimeters];
Section 2(44) of the M.V.Act, defines 'Tractor' as
follows :
"tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself
constructed to carry any load (other than
equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but
excludes a road-roller;
Section 2(46) of the M.V.Act, defines 'Trailer' as
follows :
"trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-
trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be
drawn by a motor vehicle.
16. Therefore, tractor engine is a vehicle or motor
vehicle, which is mechanically propelled vehicle and trailer,
is intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Therefore,
when the trailer is attached to tractor, then the whole
tractor and trailer becomes component of motor vehicle.
As per the definition of Section 2(44) of the M.V.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
Act, the tractor, being motor vehicle, is not itself
constructed to carry any load. But when the tractor is
usable, when tractor is attached to the trailer, the trailer
means which is intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle,
therefore, when these definitions of motor vehicle, vehicle
tractor and trailer are interpreted, it becomes whole
vehicle.
17. When the tractor and trailer attached and both
are moving, even if, tractor alone is insured and trailer is
not insured, but the insurer of tractor is liable and
responsible to pay compensation. This principle was laid
down by this Court in the case of Honnamma and others
vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., and
others1. This Court in paragraph No.4, in detail discussed
and taken note of the decision in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Sri Maruthi2 wherein it is
held that the combination of tractor-trailer is nothing short
of a goods carriage. Therefore, when once it is held as
2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1985
ILR 2011 KAr 4139
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
goods carriage vehicle, by virtue of Section 11-1(1) of fully
worded policy and also provisions of Section 147, the
claim of the claimants on hand is covered. It is also held
that depending upon the user of the vehicle whether for
agricultural purpose or for commercial purpose, the
liability of the insurer would be decided. When the
intention of the legislation was to cover compulsorily all
the risk arising out of the use of a motor vehicle and that
the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with that of the
insured subject to Section 147(1)(b), coolies or employees
are compulsorily covered and held the insurance company
is liable. The said judgment is also challenged before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.2135/2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the
judgment vide its order dated 05.05.2025 and coming to
the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the order. In the
case on hand, the case is vice-versa and in the said case
tractor was in insured, but in the present case trailer is
insured and tractor is not insured.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
18. This Court also would like to rely upon
paragraph No.33 of the Maruthi's case decision having
considered same, it is very clear that tractor and trailer
combined would constitute a goods carriage, therefore
permits are necessary for its use on the roads. Under
Motor Vehicles Act, by Section 2(44) and 2(46) the
definition of tractor-trailer would definitely indicate when
the trailer drawn are intended to be drawn by motor
vehicle, it becomes a goods vehicle.
19. In the present case on hand, the deceased is a
third party. The Ho'ble Apex Court in the judgment of
Pappu and others vs Vinodlumar Lamba and another3, held
that the benefit of third party claim is available only an
establishment of defence available under Section 2 of
Section 149 only, but not otherwise.
20. This Court also would like to rely upon the
judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Santokben
(2018) 3 SCC 308
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
Anupsing Chauhan and others vs. Sursing Motibhai Baia
and others4, would like to extract paragraphs No.14, 15,
16 and 18.
"14. The term "Trailer" has been defined under
Section 2(46) as under:
""trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi
trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be
drawn by a motor vehicle."
15. Thus, any vehicle, which is mechanically
propelled and is adapted for use upon roads, whether
such propulsion is transmitted from an external or
internal source, is motor vehicle. It includes chassis to
which a body has not been attached and a trailer. The
definition of term "motor vehicle" thus is provided in the
means and includes expression. In the includes portion
trailer is specifically covered. For better clarification the
word Trailer' itself has been defined under Section 2(46)
as to mean any vehicle other than a semi trailer and a
sidecar drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor
vehicle. The fact, that the trailer in question was one
which would be covered under Section 2(46) of the Act is
beyond dispute. By virtue of Section 2(28) of the Act,
such trailer when attached to a mechanically propelled
vehicle becomes a motor vehicle. It is, therefore, not
possible to accept the contention of the insurance
company that the trailer is not a motor vehicle.
16. When thus such a motor vehicle was being
driven by the licensed driver and which, as concluded
above, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner,
2015 SCC Online, Guj 5535
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
the insurance company, which had insured such trailer, is
duty bound to cover the risk of a third party who may
receive any injury on account of accident arising out of
use of such motor vehicle and resulting from such rash
and negligent act of the driver. As recorded earlier, but
for the trailer, being joined to the tractor, the accident in
question would not have occurred. This is one more
reason to hold the insurance company of the trailer liable
to satisfy the award in its entirety. The insurance
company could have avoided its liability if it is established
that a condition of the insurance required the insured to
use the trailer only with a specific tractor which was
covered under the insurance policy. This admittedly is not
the case before us. As conceded by the witness of the
insurance company, neither the insurance policy nor the
cover note specified any such condition. Merely because
therefore the insurance policy was issued with respect to
a particular tractor and the trailer in question would not
imply any condition that the same must be used
simultaneously so as to be able to enjoy the insurance
coverage. In absence of any such condition, the owner
cannot be deprived of the insurance coverage and, at any
rate, the third party cannot be deprived of the right of full
compensation. Insurance is a contract of indemnity. No
condition which does not form part of such contract can
be read by implication.
xxx
xxx
xxx
18. Under the circumstances, the approach of the
Tribunal, that the insurer of the trailer would bear only
50% of the compensation cannot be accepted. This is not
a case where two separate vehicles were involved in an
accident where their liabilities can be segregated even for
the internal separation. Here is the case, where driver of
the tractor with a trailer acted negligently. The accident
took-place on account of use of trailer as a motor vehicle.
One cannot look at this accident as a negligent act of the
trailer or of the tractor. Negligence is that of a human
agency. The resultant accident occurred on account of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
use of a motor vehicle. In the result, the opponent No. 3-
insurance company is held liable to satisfy the entire
award and not just 50%, as provided by the Claims
Tribunal."
Wherein the Gujarati High Court, in paragraph No.14
discussed with regard to definition of "trailer" under
Section 2(46) means any vehicle, other than a semi trailer
and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor
vehicle.
21. In paragraph No.15, it is discussed that any
vehicle, which is mechanically propelled and is adapted for
use upon roads, whether such propulsion is transmitted
from an external or internal source, is motor vehicle. The
definition of the term "motor vehicle" thus is provided in
the means and includes expression. In the includes
portion, trailer is specifically covered. For better
clarification taken note of Section 2(46). By virtue of
Section 2(28) of the Act, such trailer when attached to a
mechanically propelled vehicle becomes a motor vehicle.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
22. In paragraph No.16, it is discussed that when
such a motor vehicle was being driven by the licensed
driver and which, as concluded above, was being driven in
a rash and negligent manner, the insurance company,
which had insured such trailer, is duty bound to cover the
risk of a third party who may receive any injury on
account of the accident arising out of use of such motor
vehicle and resulting from such rash and negligent act of
the driver. As recorded earlier, but for the trailer, being
joined to the tractor, the accident in question would not
have occurred. This is one more reason to hold the
insurance company of the trailer liable to satisfy the award
in its entirety. It is not in dispute that the trailer is insured
with respond No.2 and without the aid of the tractor the
same cannot be moved independently, but the same is
defined as a motor vehicle. The insurance company could
have avoided its liability if it is established that a condition
of the insurance required the insured to use the trailer
only with a specific tractor which was covered under the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
insurance policy and in this case also trailer is used in
respect of other tractor not insured but tractor of trailer
series is insured
23. But, in the case on hand also, the trailer was
attached to other tractor, but not the tractor involved in
the accident. But, the fact is that the trailer is insured with
respondent No.2 is not in dispute. Admittedly this is not a
case before the Court that there was no insurance to the
trailer and even if vehicles are insured with different
insurance company the same cannot be a reason to avoid
the liability when the insurance policy was issued in
respect of the trailer.
24. In the case on hand, it is very clear that trailer
which was issued only fell on the third party and no
condition in the policy that the said trailer has to be
propelled only to the tractor which was insured and no
such condition is imposed, the owner cannot be fastened
on the liability since the trailer is insured and insurance
company cannot avoid the liability and the third party
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
admittedly cannot be deprived of right of compensation.
The Gujarat High Court also in detail discussed in
paragraphs No.14, 15, 16 and 18 and even to the extent
of 50% and held that entire compensation is payable and
no 50% as contended in the said appeal.
25. In the case on hand, where driver of the tractor
with a trailer acted negligently and accident took place on
account of use of trailer as a motor vehicle. One cannot
look at that this accident as a negligent act of the trailer
and the trailer is propelled to the tractor and negligence is
that of a human agency.
26. Having considered the principles laid down in
the judgment referred supra and also the definition of
Section 2(44), Section 2(46) as well as Section 2(28)
which have been extracted above, it is very clear that both
tractor and trailer are the motor vehicle and when the
trailer is also a motor vehicle, no doubt both tractor and
trailer must be insured separately. But, in the case on
hand, when the claimant is a third party and when the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
trailer which was insured, trailer was fell on the third
party, who was sitting on the edge of the road as there is
a direct contact between the trailer and the victim and also
it is clear that without the aid of the tractor, trailer cannot
be moved. Since, no engine is attached and the purpose of
treating the trailer as also motor vehicle would be
defeated, if it is considered in strict sense.
27. When such being the case, it is vice versa when
this Court held that when the tractor is insured and trailer
is not insured held the responsibility on the insurance
company and similarly, when the tractor is not insured and
when the trailer is insured, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case on hand, trailer only fell on the
third party. Hence, the tribunal fails to take note of the
said fact into consideration and lost sight of the above
discussion made as the third party is the victim and
committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner
instead of insurance company since insurance company
not disputed the fact that the trailer was insured with
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.2. Hence, fastening the liability on the
owner is nothing but an error committed by the tribunal.
Therefore, we answered the point No.1 as negative that
the tribunal not justified in fastening liability on the owner
and fails to take note of the fact that claimants are third
parties, it is the bounden duty of the insurance company,
when the trailer was insured to indemnify the owner of the
vehicle in terms of the contract.
Point No.2 :
28. The main contention of the counsel appearing
for the appellants that the tribunal not awarded just and
reasonable compensation. The material clearly discloses
that the deceased was aged about 50 years. There is no
dispute with regard to the fact that the post mortem
report also discloses the same and rightly taken the
income at Rs.7,500/- since the accident was taken place in
2014 and the same is a national income. When the post
mortem report discloses age as 50 years and in between
the group of 50-60 years, future prospectus has to be
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
added as 10% but tribunal has not added the same.
Though counsel appearing for the appellants would
contend that ought to have added 25% and the same
cannot be accepted.
29. The tribunal committed an error in deducting
1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses, and
reason assigned is only that two of the children are
majors. In view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Seema Rani and Ors. V. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.5, it is categorically held
that in view of decision in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited v. Birendra and Ors.6 even major
married sons and daughters are also entitled for a
compensation. But, in the case on hand, claimants No.2
and 3 only the majors and even they unmarried and non
earning member. When such being the case, the deduction
made 1/3rd instead of 1/4th erroneous, which requires
interference of this Court.
2025 INSC 192
(2020) 11 SCC 356
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
30. When such being the case, this Court has to
revisit the calculation. Having considered the notional
income as Rs.7,500/-, by adding 10% as future prospects,
it comes to Rs.8,250/-. Having considered the same i.e.,
Rs.8,250/- by deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses,
it comes to Rs.6,188/-. Thus, loss of dependency comes to
Rs.9,65,328/- (6,188 x 12 x 13).
31. The claimants are four in number are entitled
for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium which
comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. Apart from that, a sum of
Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and
transportation expenses. Also a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate. Thus, total compensation comes to
Rs.11,55,328/-.
32. Since more than six years have lapsed after
rendering of decision in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.7, appellants would be
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
entitled for addition of 20% i.e., Rs.38,000/- on award
under conventional heads. Adding the same, it comes to
Rs.11,93,328/- and same is payable with interest at the
rate of 6%. Hence, we have answered point No.2 partly in
affirmative in coming to the conclusion that Tribunal
committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation.
33. In view of discussion made above, we pass the
following :
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
01.09.2020 passed in MVC
No.1539/2015 by the Court of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV,
Vijayapur is modified by granting
compensation of Rs.11,93,328/- as
against Rs.8,65,000/- with interest of
6% from the date of petition till its
realization.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
HC-KAR
iii) Liability is fastened on respondent No.2
- Insurance Company instead of
respondent No.1 - owner.
iv) Enhanced compensation is payable
within six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
v) The disbursement as well as
apportionment of the amount is
unaltered.
vi) Transmit the records to tribunal
forthwith to enable the claimants to
withdraw the compensation amount.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
THM,SN
CT:JLR
