[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
G Kulashekhara vs Syed Semiullah on 6 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
MFA No. 21402 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21402 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. S. KULASHEKHARA
S/O. KULLAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
COOLIE,
2. KALYANI
W/O. S. KULASHEKHARA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O: 13TH WARD,
KAMALAPUR, HOSPET TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
BHARATHI
HM ...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
(BY SRI. AKASH AMARASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR
Location:
HIGHCOURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
DHARWAD
AND:
1. SYED SEMIULLAH
S/O. LATE ASADULLA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILOR,
BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/T-8641-8642,
R/O: 13TH WARD, FORT AREA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
MFA No. 21402 of 2013
HC-KAR
KAMALAPUR, HOSPET TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
2. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SLV TOWERS,
PARVATHI NAGAR,
BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD 30-06-2012 PASSED ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSPET IN MVC.NO.329/2011
AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
MFA No. 21402 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act,1988 (for short 'M.V.Act') praying for
enhancement of compensation and also challenging the
liability fixed only against the owner of the vehicle in
judgment and award dated 30.06.2012 in MVC
No.329/2011 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Hospet (for short 'Tribunal').
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they
were before Tribunal.
3. The claimants being the parents of deceased
Kavya, aged about 9 years have filed the claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for
compensation in respect of the death of their daughter
Kavya that had taken place in the road traffic accident
occurred on 09.10.2010 at 05.45 p.m. involving the tractor-
trolley bearing Reg.No.KA-35/T-8641.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
4. It is the contention of claimants that after
plucking the sugarcane while Kavya aged about 9 years was
coming on the road near Masthanappa house at Kerethanda
road, Kamalapur, due to rash and negligent driving of driver
of the tractor-trolley bearing Reg.No.KA-35/T-8641 and
8642, trolley dashed against her and she succumbed to the
injuries when she was taken to Government 100 bed
hospital. Claimants being the parents of deceased are
entitled for compensation. Hence, they have filed claim
petition praying for compensation under different heads.
5. Even after service of notice, respondents No.1 &
2 being driver and owner of the tractor-trolley have not
appeared and not contested the petition.
6. Respondent No.3 being the insurer has filed the
objection statement before the Tribunal, wherein he denied
the contention of claimants in toto i.e., regarding the place,
date and time of accident and further contended that the
driver of the tractor-trolley was not having valid and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of petition against respondent No.3.
7. On behalf of claimants, Claimant No.2 was
examined as P.W.1 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.8 and
closed their side. On behalf of respondent No.3, employee
at respondent No.3 was examined as R.W.1 and another
witness as R.W.2 apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.3 and
closed their side.
8. After recording evidence of both sides, hearing
arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of ₹.2,70,000/- and held that insurer is not
liable to pay compensation because driver of the tractor-
trolley was not having valid and effective driving licence.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award,
claimants have preferred the present appeal.
10. Heard arguments of both sides.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
11. Learned counsel for appellants Sri Akash
Amarashetti would submit that the driver of the tractor-
trolley was having effective and valid driving licence as on
the date of accident because he was having both licences to
run LMV and also HGV transport. Furthermore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is less because in
the recent judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken
the minimum wages for a skilled labourer as on the date of
accident to be taken as the income of deceased. Hence, on
these two grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri
G.N.Raichur would submit that there was no valid licence to
the driver of tractor-trolley. Furthermore, the accident
happened in the sugarcane landed properties and not on
the public road. Furthermore, the deceased was also held
liable for the accident because she was trying to pluck the
sugarcane from the moving vehicle. Furthermore, as per the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.6902/2021 (Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Another) dated
16.11.2021, income of the deceased is to be taken as
25,000/- per annum and accordingly the relevant multiplier
15 is to be applied. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the
petition with costs.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
further submit that in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court relied by the learned counsel for appellants, this
earlier judgment is not overruled and it still holds good. In
this judgment, when the injured minor was there, this
judgment came into existence. Hence it is not applicable to
the facts of the case and it is to be differentiated from the
present facts of the case. Hence, prayed for dismissal of
appeal.
14. After hearing arguments of both sides, verifying
the Trial Court records, the points that would arise for
consideration are:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
1. Whether the appellants establish that the driver
of tractor-trolley was having valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident?
2. Whether saddling liability only on owner by the
Tribunal is improper?
3. Whether the appellants are entitled for
enhanced compensation? If so, at what rate?
15. Finding of this Court on the above points is as
under:
Point No.1: Affirmative
Point No.2: Negative
Point No.3: Affirmative
16. The admitted facts of the case are that on
09.10.2010 at about 09.45 p.m. near Masthanappa house
at Kerethanda Road, Kamalapur, when claimant tried to
pluck the sugarcane from a moving tractor-trolley bearing
No.KA-35/T-8641 and 8642, left side of the trolley dashed
against the deceased Kavya, aged 9 years and on the same
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
day she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said
road traffic accident.
17. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently
contends that the accident was not happened on the public
road but it was on the private road and hence the insurer is
not liable to pay compensation. However, the charge-sheet
and its annexure including spot panchanama and other
documents reveal that the accident happened on
Kamalapura-Kerethanda road near the house of one
Masthanappa. Thus, it is not in a private property but on
the public board. Hence, the above said argument of
learned counsel for insurer is not tenable in law.
18. Learned counsel for insurer would further submit
that the deceased is also liable for the accident because she
tried to pluck the sugarcane from the moving trolley and
thus the accident happened. But, it is to be noted here that
the accident happened because of left side of the trolley hit
on the minor girl and the driver should be cautious enough
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
while driving the tractor-trolley that the person who was
coming on left side of the road should be avoided, but it is
not being done in this case. Hence, the above said
arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not
tenable.
19. As far as driving license is concerned, Exs.R.2 &
R.3-the driving licence extract of driver of the tractor-
trolley, establish that the driver was having valid and
effective driving licence to drive LMV (non-transportable
vehicle) from 18.02.2006 to 17.02.2011 and he was having
valid and effective driving licence to drive transport vehicle
from 20.07.2010 to 19.07.2013. The accident occurred on
09.10.2010. Hence, the driver was having valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of accident. In this
regard, in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund
Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd reported in
AIR 2017 SC 3668, it is clearly held that a person who
was having licence to drive LMV, when includes licence to
drive transport vehicles, then definitely the driver of tractor-
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
trolley was having valid and effective driving licence as on
the date of accident. However, the Tribunal by relying upon
some old judgment which is not applicable at this juncture
has held that the driver was not having specific driving
licence to drive this tractor-trolley and thus held that
insurer is not liable to pay compensation, which is not
proper.
20. As far as enhancement of compensation is
concerned, learned counsel for appellants relied for the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.10278/2025 (arising of the SLP(C) No.14444/2025
(Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari
and Another) dated 08.08.2025.
21. In the aforesaid judgment, the of Hon'ble Apex
Court has re-assessed the compensation to be granted to
the minor child and granted the total compensation at
₹.35,90,489/- considering the disability of the minor girl at
90% in respect of the accident held on 14.10.2012 by
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
relying upon the Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported
in 2013 ACJ 2445; Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others
reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3692.
22. In Hitesh's case, it is held as under:
"9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor
appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and
order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident
that the Courts below have failed to take into account the
monthly income of the appellant while determining the
quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and
consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who
suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle
accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-
earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of
compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful
employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the
computation of compensation under the head of loss of
income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the
minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for
the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of
action arises. The said observation was rendered by this
Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors.3, and Baby
Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.4 ."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
23. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.6902/2021 is to be followed and not the recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that case, only
₹.25,000/- per annum was taken as the income of minor.
Because in that case, the death of the minor child was dealt
with, but in the citation relied by the learned counsel for
appellants, injury suffered by a minor was dealt with.
24. On perusal of both the said citations, both are
dealt by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court. The
judgment relied by respondent No.2 is dated 16.11.2021,
whereas the judgment relied by the appellants was dated
08.08.2025. The judgment relied by the appellants is the
recent one and thus it is to be relied.
25. The principles note down in the aforesaid
judgment that the minimum wages of a skilled labourer as
on the date of accident is to be considered as the income of
deceased minor girl. The date of accident was 09.10.2010.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
So the minimum wages of a skilled labourer as prescribed
by the Minimum Wages Act as on that day was ₹.4,578/-
per month. Hence, that is to be taken as the income of
deceased and it is to be multiplied by 12 to get the annual
income of deceased.
26. 40% is to be added to it as future prospects as
per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 50% of the
national income of deceased is to be deducted towards her
personal expenses. She was aged 9 years at the time of
accident. In Hitesh's case supra, the injured minor girl was
alive and she had suffered 90% disability. At that time her
age was considered to apply the relevant multiplier.
However, in Kurvan's case supra, the second schedule for
compensation is considered, wherein if the age of deceased
is 15 years, then the relevant multiplier would be 15. So
considering these aspects, the claimants are entitled for
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
compensation under the head loss of dependency as
follows:
₹.4,578 x 12 + 40% / 50% x 15 = ₹.5,76,828/-
27. Under the head filial consortium, claimants are
entitled for ₹.80,000/- + 10% escalation charges as per as
per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram
Alias Chuhru Ram reported in ACJ 2018 2782 and thus
claimants are entitled for compensation of ₹.88,000/- under
the said head. The claimants are entitled for compensation
of ₹.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹.15,000/-
towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled for
the following modified compensation:
Compensation Compensation
Sl.No. Heads awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1 Loss of dependency ₹.1,50,000/- ₹.5,76,828/-
2 Future prospectus ₹.60,000/- -
3 Loss of expectation
of life (non ₹.60,000/- -
pecuniary damages)
4 Filial consortium - ₹.88,000/-
5 Funeral expenses - ₹.15,000/-
6 Loss of estate - ₹.15,000/-
Total ₹.2,70,000/- ₹.6,94,828/-
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
28. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of ₹.6,94,828/- instead of compensation of
₹.2,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, I pass the
following:
ORDER
1. Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
2. The judgment and award passed in MVC
No.329/2011 dated 30.06.2012 on the file of
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet is
modified holding that the claimants are entitled
for total compensation of ₹.6,94,828/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realisation instead of compensation of
₹.2,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The respondent-insurer shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of 8
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1775
HC-KAR
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment.
4. The disbursement and deposit shall be made as
per the order of the Tribunal.
5. Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
6. Draw modified decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB-Upto para 2
SH-Para 3 to end
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5
