Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd vs Irappa S/O Revanshiddappa Vattar on 26 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
MFA No. 102887 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102887 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
N.K.COMPLEX KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.,CLUB ROAD,
MADIWALE COMPLEX,
II FLOOR, BELGAUM
POLICY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IRAPPA S/O. REVANSHIDDAPPA VATTAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. VIDYAGIRI,
14TH CROSS, BAGALKOT
TQ and DIST: BAGALKOT.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
2. MAHAMMADSAB S/O. HUSENSAB TAHSILDAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
SHELAR
R/O. HORAKERI ONI,
Date: 2025.09.27
11:23:32 +0530 NARGUND.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. M. KALAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 16.07.2014 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND MACT-I, BAGALKOT IN MVC NO.1/2011, AND PASS OTHER
ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE OR THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
MFA No. 102887 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the judgment and award dated 16.07.2014
passed in MVC No.1/2011 by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, and MACT-I, Bagalkot.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal
are as follows:
2.1. On 05.01.2010, the deceased Savitri and the
petitioner were waiting for arrival of a bus on Navalgund -
Annigeri road. At that time, a motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-26/L-2413, ridden by its rider in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed to the deceased. As a result, she
sustained the grievous injuries, and succumbed to the
injuries during treatment. The petitioner is the legal
representative of the deceased. Hence, filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
HC-KAR
compensation for the death of his wife Smt. Savithri.
Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
3. The Tribunal issued a notice to the owner of the
motorcycle. Despite the service of notice, he remained
unrepresented, and was placed ex-parte.
4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition and contended that, the rider of the motorcycle did
not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the
date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions.
Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the
Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case,
examined himself as PW-1, and marked 7 documents as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
HC-KAR
Exs.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company has not
examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
vide judgment dated 16.07.2014 and awarded a
compensation of Rs.8,18,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from 04.01.2011 till realisation and directed
the Insurance Company to deposit the same.
8. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed
this appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
Insurance Company, and also learned counsel for the
petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that, the petitioner has not produced any income
proof. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
HC-KAR
deceased at Rs.6,000/-. He submits that, in the absence of
income proof, the Tribunal should have taken the notional
income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010.
The income has to be assessed at Rs.5,500/-. He further
submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for petitioner
supported the impugned judgment and accordingly, prays
to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The point that would arise for consideration is
regarding the quantum of compensation.
14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
the accident, and also the death of the deceased Savitri in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
HC-KAR
the road traffic accident. Though it is contended that the
deceased was doing agricultural coolie work and earning
Rs.6,000/- p.m., the petitioner has not produced any
income proof. In the absence of income proof, the notional
income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident
occurred in 2010. The notional income should be taken at
Rs.5,500/- p.m. whereas the Tribunal has assessed the
income at Rs.6,000/- p.m. It is noticed that, the Tribunal
has not added 40% of the future prospects to the income of
the deceased in view of the proposition of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1 which
comes to Rs.7,700/- There is one dependant of the
deceased, and therefore, 50% has to deducted from the
income of the deceased towards her personal expenses
which comes to Rs.3,850/-. The Tribunal, also wrongly
applied the multiplier of '16' as the deceased was aged 28
AIR 2017 SC 5157
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
HC-KAR
years old as of the date of the accident and the correct
multiplier applicable would be '17'. Considering these
aspects, the loss of dependency is worked out to
Rs.7,85,400/- (Rs.3,850x12x17). Further, there is one
petitioner and he is entitled to Rs.48,000/- towards loss of
consortium. In addition to it, the petitioner is entitled to
Rs.36,000/- towards the funeral expenses and the loss of
estate. In total, the compensation to be awarded is
Rs.8,69,400/- whereas, the Tribunal has awarded the
compensation of Rs.8,18,000/- which is on the lower side.
However, the petitioner has not filed any appeal, seeking
enhancement of the compensation. Hence, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper,
and do not call for any interference by this Court. In view
of the same, the point regarding quantum of compensation
is answered accordingly.
15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13504
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 16.07.2014
passed in M.V.C.No.1/2011 by the learned
District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I,
Bagalkot, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The office is directed to transmit the records and
the amount in deposit to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
PA,NAA CT:ANB
