Karnataka High Court
Sakubai And Ors vs Imam Sab And Anr on 26 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
MFA No. 203615 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 202430 of 2024
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.203615 OF 2024 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202430 OF 2024 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.203615/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SAKUBAI W/O LATE ASHOK RATHOD,
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA 2. ARUN KUMAR S/O ASHOK RATHOD,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SHWETA D/O ASHOK RATHOD,
AGE ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL R/O. NEAR SEVALAL TEMPLE,
MARTUR STATION THANDA, TQ. SHAHABAD,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
MFA No. 203615 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 202430 of 2024
HC-KAR
1. IMAM SAB S/O KHAJA SAB KARAJAGE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
OWNER OF TRACTOR No.KA-28/T-7239,
R/O. SIDDAPUR (A) VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-584 127.
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BELLARY THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE
AND ITS MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, ASIAN ARCADE,
NEAR S.V. PATEL CHOWK, STATION MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, 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 A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS. B) TO MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.01.2024 PASSED IN
MVC NO.476/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL
BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF
Rs.39,99,800/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE
THIS HON'BLE COURT. C) ORDER FOR COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
IN MFA NO.202430/2024:
BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
BELLARY THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE
AND ITS MANAGER,
3RD FLOOR, ASIAN ARCADE,
NEAR S.V. PATEL CHOWK, STATION MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
MFA No. 203615 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 202430 of 2024
HC-KAR
(NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
RELIACNE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBLI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAKUBAI W/O LATE ASHOK RATHOD,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE ASHOK RATHOD,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. SHWETA D/O ASHOK RATHOD,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL R/O. NEAR SEVALAL TEMPLE,
MARTUR STATION TANDA, TQ. SHAHABAD,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.
4. IMAM SAB S/O KHAJASAB KARAJAGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND OWNER
OF TRACTOR No.KA-28/T-7239,
R/O. SIDDAPUR (A) VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW
THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 16.01.2024 IN MVC No.476/2022
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT
KALABURAGI.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
MFA No. 203615 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 202430 of 2024
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS 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
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
These two appeals being MFA Nos.202430/2024 and
203615/2024 by appellant - Insurance Company as well as
appellant/claimants, calling in question the judgment and
award dated 16.01.2024 in MVC No.476/2022, passed by I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburgi, on the
ground of liability as well as quantum of compensation.
2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle
and death of Rohith alias Abhishek son of Ashok are not in
dispute. The only dispute as per the appellant - Insurance
Company is liability to pay the compensation on the
premise that the trailers attached to the tractor are not
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
insured, however, the tractor was insured with the said
Insurance Company and the appellants/claimants, seeking
for enhancement of compensation on the ground of
inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. Heard, Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA
No.202430/2024 and Sri Nagaraj Patil, learned Counsel
appearing for appellants/claimants in MFA
No.203615/2024.
4. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, with all vehemence
submitted that, the liability called in question is only on
the ground that the trailers which were attached to the
tractor are not insured, however, the tractor is insured at
the time of accident. The two trailers which are not
insured, were attached by the tractor. In these
circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
the compensation and it is the owners of the tractor as
well as the trailers are responsible to make good the
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
5. So far as the quantum is concerned, the
Tribunal has taken the income at the rate of Rs.14,750/-,
in the absence of any proof of income added 40% towards
the Future Prospectus and awarded exorbitant
compensation under the conventional heads. The
claimants, except mother, others are brother and sister of
the deceased i.e., the siblings of the deceased and they
are not entitled for compensation. Accordingly, sought to
allow the appeal and dismiss the claim petition against the
Insurance Company on the liability. It is also contended
that, in the event the liability is fastened, by retaining the
findings of the Tribunal, the compensation required to be
reduced, which is awarded according to the Insurance
Company, as the same is exorbitant.
6. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company, Sri
Nagraj Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant in MFA
No.203615/2024 with all vehemence submitted that, it is
not in dispute that the tractor is insured, but the trailers
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
were not. It is also not in dispute that the part of the
vehicle which caused accident, i.e., which came in contact
with the deceased, is the tractor, while he was proceeding
on his motorcycle bearing number KA-51/HQ-5854 and it
is the tractor which has caused the accident and
admittedly, as on the date of accident, the tractor was
insured with the appellant - Insurance Company in MFA
No.202430/2024. That part, the crime was registered
against the driver of the tractor. The Tribunal, after going
through the entire materials, framed Issue No.1 against
the driver of the tractor and made liable the insurer of the
tractor to pay the compensation. As such, the ground of
liability raised by the appellant - Insurance Company in
the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company have
no legs to stand, accordingly, required to be dismissed.
7. So far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal
looking to the year of accident i.e. 2022, taken the income
as per the income fixed under the chart i.e. Rs.14,750/-,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
but taken the income towards personal expenditure at
50% and awarded compensation. So also, not awarded
appropriate compensation under the head - Filial
Consortium and the same requires reconsideration and re-
determination. As per the law declared by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the siblings who
are depending on the deceased bachelor, in the absence of
father, are entitled as dependents and be counted while
deducting personal expenses. Accordingly, sought to allow
the appeal and enhance the compensation by dismissing
the appeal filed by the appellant - Insurance Company.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, perused the both appeal papers, so also Trial
Court Record, the points that would arise for our
consideration are as under:
2009 ACJ 1298
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in
fastening the liability on the appellant -
Insurance Company?
ii) Whether the compensation awarded by
the tribunal befit within the expression
of just compensation?.
9. Our answer to the above points for
consideration are as under:
Point No.1 - in affirmative.
Point No.2 - Partly in affirmative, for the
following:
REASONS
10. As could be seen from the record, the tractor
was insured on the relevant point of time i.e. as on the
date of accident. It is not in dispute that, even according
to the appellant - Insurance Company, the part which
collided with the motorcycle of the deceased, on which he
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
was riding at the time of accident resulted in death of the
rider and on whose behalf the claim petition filed before
the concerned Tribunal, is the tractor and the police have
registered the case against the driver of the tractor. The
Tribunal, while answering the Issue No.1, has held that, it
is the driver of the Tractor who was rash and negligent in
driving the Tractor and answered the Issue in affirmative.
So also, the Tribunal while answering the question of
liability to pay the compensation at paragraph No.17 of
the judgment has clearly stated that, the Insurance
Company has admitted in its objections that the Tractor
was insured during the period i.e. 27.02.2022 to
26.02.2023. The accident occurred on 18.03.2022 i.e.
during the subsistence of the insurance policy and
admittedly, it is the tractor which collided with the
motorcycle resulting in death of rider of the motorcycle.
There is nothing remains more to consider regarding the
liability as rightly contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in the appeal filed on behalf of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
the claimants. Hence, the grounds have no legs to stand,
are required to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the point No.1 for
consideration answered in affirmative against the appellant
- Insurance Company and in favour of the
appellants/claimants.
12. So far as the quantum is concerned, as rightly
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/claimants, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma (supra) has clearly stated that, the dependency of
the siblings be taken, even in the case of death of bachelor
in the absence of father. In the case on hand, the
deceased who was looking after the entire family after
death of their father. Though, the siblings were shown as
major, but, they are studying and dependent on the
deceased brother. In these circumstances, the Tribunal
has committed a serious error in deducting personal
expenses at 50% instead of 1/3rd, as the claimants are
three in numbers, in terms of the law laid down by the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Looking to
the compensation awarded under the conventional heads,
are also on the lower side i.e., compensation towards filial
consortium is concerned. Further, the Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation under '10% escalation' as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI2 from 2017.
The year of accident in the case on hand is 2022,
accordingly, they are entitled for escalation for one term of
three years. In view of the discussion supra, the grounds
raised by the appellant - Insurance Company required to
be rejected and the grounds raised by the
appellant/claimants required to be considered.
Accordingly, we proceed to re-determine the
compensation.
13. On re-determination the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the same would comes to:
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
Heads of compensation Amount
Loss of Dependency : Rs. 29,73,600/-
(14,750 + 40% x 12 x 18 x
2/3)
Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Filial Consortium : Rs. 1,20,000/-
(Rs.40,000 x 3)
10% escalation for three : Rs. 15,000/-
completed years
[Rs.1,20,000+ 30,000
=1,50,000]
TOTAL : Rs. 31,38,600/-
On re-determination, the claimants/appellants are
entitled for a sum of Rs.31,38,600/-, against
compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,
Rs.23,50,200/-. The re-determined compensation is
rounded off to Rs.31,39,000/-. The re-determined
compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the point raised in
Point No. 2 answered 'partly in affirmative' and proceeded
to pass the following
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the Insurance
Company being MFA No.202430/2024
is dismissed.
ii) The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith, for disbursement.
iii) The appeal filed in MFA
No.203615/2024 by the
claimants/appellants is allowed in
part, modifying the judgment and
award dated 16.01.2024 passed by I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and
MACT, Kalaburgi and the
compensations re-determined from
Rs.23,50,200/- to Rs.31,39,000/-
iv) The re-determined compensation shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
annum from the date of petition till
realization.
v) The appellant - Insurance Company in
MFA No.202430/2024 and respondent
in MFA No. 203615/2024, shall deposit
the entire balance re-determined
compensation along with the accrued
interest stated supra, before the
concerned tribunal, within six weeks
from the date of the receipt copy of
this order.
vi) The disbursement as well as
apportionment are kept intact, as per
direction of the Tribunal.
vii) The registry is directed to transmit the
Trial Court Record forthwith i.e. within
an outer limit of two weeks,
immediately after release of this
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5872-DB
HC-KAR
judgment enabling the appellant -
insurance company to deposit the
amount and the claimants to seek for
release of the same.
viii) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
THM
CT: AK
