[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri.Gopal S/O Ramu Masti vs The Divisional Controller on 30 January, 2026
-1-
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
MFA Crob No.100020 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MFA NO.101157 OF 2016
C/W
MFA CROB NO.100020/2019
IN MFA NO.101157/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C. BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.
(OWNER/CUSTODIAN OF NWKRTC
BUS BEARING NO.KA-42/F-362)
R/BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
AND:
B SHELAR
Location: High 1. SHRI GOPAL S/O RAMU MASTI,
Court of
Karnataka, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Dharwad Bench
R/O: SOLAPUR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. MAHADEVI LAGAMANNA PATIL,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: EXAMBA, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.01.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.246/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. M.A.C.T.,
HUKKERI, AS COMPENSATION AWARDED IS EXCESSIVE AND
EXORBITANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.
-2-
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
MFA Crob No.100020 of 2019
IN MFA CROB.NO.100020/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. GOPAL S/O RAMU MASTI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SOLAPUR-591313,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O LAGAMANNA PATIL
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: EXAMBA-591244,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BELAGAVI-590001, DIVISION BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.101157/2016 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
CROSS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 05.01.2016 IN MVC NO.246/2015 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL MACT, HUKKERI TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWED
CLAIM AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.5,50,000/-
TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,00,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 9% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION TO THE CROSS OBJECTORS/CROSS APPELLANTS
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.01.2026 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-3-
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
MFA Crob No.100020 of 2019
CAV JUDGMENT
MFA No.101157/2016 is filed by the North West Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) challenging the judgment
and award dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hukkeri ('the Tribunal', for
short), in MVC No.246/2015 and MFA Crob.No.100020/2019 is
filed by the claimants, who are the son and daughter of the
deceased Smt. Srimanthi, seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. The brief facts are that on 23.08.2014 at about 4.40
p.m., the deceased Smt. Srimanthi was walking near Basava
Circle, Chikkodi. At that time, NWKRTC bus bearing registration
No.KA-42/F-362, coming from Basava Circle side towards
Belagavi, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her.
She sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. A criminal
case was registered against the driver of the bus. Post-mortem
report confirmed the death was due to the accident.
3. The claimants, being her children, preferred a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV
Act', for short) before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
4. The Tribunal, after considering evidence including
FIR, spot panchanama, MV report, and post-mortem report, held
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the bus driver. The Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded total
compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation
contends that the claimants were major children and not
financially dependent on the deceased and therefore no
compensation for loss of dependency should be granted. He
further contended that the income and occupation of the
deceased were not supported by evidence and that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal was exorbitant.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
Corporation has relied on the following judgments:
• M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs.Shivamma and others reported in ILR 2008
KAR 1561
• The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Belagavi
Division Vs.Smt.Shanta Ram Bhatkande and
another in MFA No.101792/2015 c/w MFA
No.101334/2015 by order dated 17.02.2018
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
• M/s. Shreerama General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs.Smt.S Thippamma @ Thippamma and
others in MFA No.101587/2016 c/w MFA
No.103960/2016 by order dated 12.01.2018
7. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the
income of the deceased was undervalued, as she was engaged in
tailoring and milk vending and also managing household
services. She submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider
future prospects of income, did not award compensation under
the heads of loss of estate, filial consortium, and loss of love and
affection, and that the interest rate awarded was lower than
reasonable. They prayed for enhancement of total compensation
to Rs.10,00,000/-.
8. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the
claimants has relied on the following judgments:
• Basavarajappa Basappa and others
Vs.Shekappa and another in MFA
No.100807/2015 by order dated 08.10.2025,
wherein at paragraph 6 it has held as follows:
"6. In the decision that is relied upon by learned
Counsel for the appellants in the case between National
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
Insurance Company Limited and Birender & Others1
Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 14 held as follows:
"14. The legal representatives of the deceased
could move application for compensation by virtue of
clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son
who is also earning and not fully dependant on the
deceased, would be still covered by the expression
"legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in
Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to
pay compensation under the Act does not cease
because of absence of dependency of the concerned
legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal
representative" has not been defined in the Act. In
Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus:-
"9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1)
of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or
any of the legal representatives of the deceased
become entitled compensation and any such legal
representative can file a claim petition. The
proviso to said sub-section makes the position
clear that where all the legal representatives had
not joined, then application can be made on behalf
of the legal representatives of the deceased by
impleading those legal representatives as
respondents. Therefore, the High Court was
justified in its view that the appellant could
maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166
of the Act.
(2020) 11 SCC 356
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
10. .....The Tribunal has a duty to make an
award. determine the amount of compensation
which is just and proper and specify the person or
persons to whom such compensation would be
paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of
compensation by a person who claims for the
same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal
representative" means a person who in law
represents the estate of a de-ceased person, and
includes any person who intermeddles with the
estate of the deceased and where a party sues or
is sued in a representative character the person on
whom the estate devolves on the death of the
party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is
the definition of legal representa-tive under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 1.e. un-der
Section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of
Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini
Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition
contained in Section 2(11) CPC is Inclusive in
character and its scope is wide, it is not confined
to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a
person who may or may not be legal heir
competent to inherit the property of the deceased
can represent the estate of the deceased person.
It includes heirs as well as persons who represent
the estate even without title either as executors or
administrators in possession of the estate of the
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
deceased. All such persons would be covered by
the expression "legal representative". As observed
in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987)
3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who
suffers on account of death of a person due to a
motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be
a wife, husband, parent and child."
In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while
adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the
Court observed that even if there is no loss of
dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal
representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the
concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His
Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction
between "right to apply for compensation" and
"entitlement to compensation". The compensation
constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a
result, the legal representative of the deceased would
inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was
dealing with the case of a married daughter of the
deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act.
Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in
this decision would clearly come to the aid of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they
are major sons of the deceased and also earning."
• Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Vs.Gangappa and others reported in HCR 2022
KANT 887, wherein at paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 25
it has held as under:
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
"22. No doubt learned counsel for insurance
company also relied upon judgement in Manjuri
Bera decided on 30.03.2007, wherein the Apex
Court discussed earlier the contention taken by
married daughter and the same was rejected as she
is not dependent. But in view of recent judgement
in Birender, the Apex Court discussed in detail
regarding the word 'legal representatives of the
deceased' and considering an application under
Section 166(1) of Motor Vehicles Act and the
judgement in Manjuri Bera is also taken note of by
the Apex Court and held that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased being
legal representatives have a right to apply for
compensation irrespective of the fact whether legal
representative was fully dependant on the deceased
and not to limit the claim towards conventional
heads only. Hence, the said contention of insurance
company cannot be accepted in view of Birender's
case.
23. The Apex Court in the said judgement
further held even married sons are also entitled for
compensation. This Court also cannot make any
discrimination whether they are married sons or
married daughters and hence, very contention that
married daughters of deceased are not entitled for
compensation cannot be accepted and the Court
has to take note of the rationale behind in coming
to the conclusion of even married sons and major
sons are eligible to claim compensation and hence
- 10 -
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
the married daughters also entitle for compensation
on all the heads and not to limit only for
conventional heads.
24. Counsel for respondents/claimants also
relied upon a judgement of Kerala High Court in the
case of Shalumol supra. In paragraph Nos.50 and
51 of the said judgement, Kerala High Court also
held that bond between the mother and daughter is
eternal and further observed that even if the
dependency is relevant criterion to claim
compensation for loss of dependency, it does not
mean financial dependency is the 'ark of the
covenant'. Dependency includes gratuitous service
dependency, physical dependency, emotional
dependency, psychological dependency so on and
so forth, which can never be equated in terms of
the money.
25. Having considered the principles laid down in
the judgements referred to supra, this Court has
taken note of recent judgement of the Apex Court
in Birender, wherein it is held that even married
sons are entitled for compensation not only on
conventional heads but also on loss of dependency.
Hence, the very contention of the appellant-
insurance company cannot be accepted."
9. It is further contended that the claimants are
dependents of the deceased. The deceased, having lost her
husband earlier, was managing family affairs and household
- 11 -
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
services, while also doing tailoring and milk vending. She was
thus the sole earning member and her contribution to the family
cannot be ignored.
10. The accident was of the year 2014, hence the
notional income for that year, as per the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, is Rs.7,500/- per month. Adding 25% for
future prospects as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi (2017 ACJ 2700), the total annual income comes to
Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.7,500/- add 25% = Rs.9,375/- x 12 =
Rs.1,12,500/-). Deducting one-third for personal expenses, the
annual income comes to Rs.75,000/- (Rs.1,12,500/- less 1/3rd =
Rs.75,000/-). The multiplier applicable for age 50 is 13.
Therefore, loss of dependency = Rs.9,75,000/- (Rs.75,000/- x
13 = Rs.9,75,000/-).
11. As regards filial consortium and loss of love and
affection, in view of the Apex Court judgment in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram & Ors. (2018 ACJ 2782), compensation is awarded to
reflect the loss suffered by the children due to untimely death of
their mother. The Tribunal did not consider this head adequately,
- 12 -
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
and therefore an amount of Rs.48,000/- each for the two
claimants is awarded for filial consortium and love/affection and
Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses, considering
two escalations in accordance with the post - 2017 judgments of
the Apex Court and this High Court, where a 10% escalation is
applied for every three years. Accordingly, the reassessment of
the compensation as per the Chart of the High Court Legal
Services Authority is as under:
Sl. No. Head of Compensation Amount (₹)
1 Loss of Dependency 9,75,000
2 Loss of Estate 18,000
3 Filial Consortium - Claimant No.1 48,000
4 Filial Consortium - Claimant No.2 48,000
5 Funeral Expenses 18,000
Total Compensation 11,07,000
12. Considering the calculations and the claimants'
losses, the total compensation is fixed at Rs.11,07,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
13. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
- 13 -
MFA No.101157 of 2016 c/w
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the Corporation is dismissed.
(ii) The cross-objection filed by the claimants is
allowed.
(iii) The judgment and award dated 05.01.2016 passed
in MVC No.246/2015 by the Additional MACT,
Hukkeri, is modified. The claimants are entitled for
total compensation of Rs.11,07,000/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
(iv) The Corporation shall deposit the enhanced
compensation along with interest within six weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
(v) Apportionment and disbursement shall be in the
same manner as directed by the Tribunal.
(vi) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal forthwith.
(vii) The trial Court records, if any, shall be transmitted
to the Tribunal forthwith.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
KGK / CT:VP
