[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Hajaratbi vs Kasiram on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4257
MFA No. 102516 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102516 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SMT. HAJARATBI W/O MOHAMMED ALI PILLU,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NEHARU NAGAR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KASIRAM S/O CHANDU CHOWAN,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF MOTOR CYCLE,
NO.KA-25/EB-4339,
R/O: AT POST TAMYANKOPPA,
TQ: MUNDAGOD, DIST: UK.,
NOW AT CENTRAL SCHOOL FOR TIBETAINS,
CAMP NO.6, TQ: MUNDAGOD, DIST: U.K.
2. V. SEKAR S/O VAJKUNDAM,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF BAJAJ MOTOR
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR CYCLE NO.KA-25/EB-4339,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI R/O: H.NO.39, K.T. BIDIKAR YLLAMMADEVI,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, HOUSE SOCIETY, SHAKTHI NAGAR, DHARWAD.
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad DIST. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT HUBLI
DATED 24.05.2014 IN MVC NO.376/2012 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4257
MFA No. 102516 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 24.05.2014 passed
by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi
('Tribunal', for short) in MVC no.376/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted that on 09.11.2011, Mohamad
Ali Pillu was crossing Yallapur road near Mundgod at 6:15 p.m.
when rider of motorcycle no.KA-25/EB-4339 rode it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against Mohamad. In accident, he
sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at Government
Hospital, Mundgod and KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, he did not
recover and succumbed to injuries. It was submitted, as on date
of accident, he was 52 years of age working as barbendor and
earning ₹10,000/- per month and that his wife had lost
dependency, claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 was filed against owners of motorcycle. Despite
service of notice, they did not appear and were placed ex-parte.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4257
HC-KAR
3. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined herself and another as PWs1 and 2 and got
marked Exhibits P1 to P9. No evidence was led by respondents.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to rash negligent driving of motorcycle by its rider and
respondent no.2 was liable to pay compensation assessed by it
at ₹2,99,000/-. Dissatisfied with quantum, this appeal is filed.
5. It was firstly submitted, Tribunal erred in taking
lower monthly income while assessing compensation. It was
nextly submitted, Tribunal failed to add future prospects and
awarded lower compensation under conventional heads. On said
grounds, sought for allowing appeal.
6. Respondents are served and unrepresented.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused judgment, award
and record.
8. From above, and since only claimant is in appeal,
point that would arise for consideration is:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4257
HC-KAR
Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed for?
9. The same is answered partly in affirmative for
following reasons:
9.1. Though claimant stated that deceased was 52 years
of age working as bar bender and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month, same was not substantiated. Therefore, Tribunal would
be justified in assessing monthly income notionally. But notional
income for year 2011 being Rs.6,000/-, Tribunal ought to have
taking same.
9.2. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1, in
case of self-employed persons between age of 50 and 60 years,
extent of future prospects to be added is 10% and deduction
towards personal expenses would be at 1/3rd and multiplier
applicable is '11'. Thus, compensation towards loss of
dependency would be Rs.5,80,794/- [6,000+(10%)-
(1/3)x12x11].
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4257
HC-KAR
10. As per decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
claimant would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
spouse consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since more than 6 years
have passed after decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
20% has to be added towards escalation i.e., Rs.14,000/-.
11. Thus, total compensation would be Rs.6,64,794/-.
12. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part, judgment
and award dated 24.05.2014 passed by Principal
Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi, in
MVC no.376/2012, is modified and claimant held
is entitled for reassessed compensation of
Rs.6,64,794/- as against Rs.2,99,000/-.
(ii) Reassessed compensation shall carry
interest at 6% per annum from date of claim
petition till deposit.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4257
HC-KAR
(iii) Respondent-Insurer is directed to
deposit enhanced compensation before Tribunal
within six (6) weeks from date of receipt of copy
of award of this order.
(iv) On deposit and taking note of fact that
claimant is a widow, 75% of total compensation
is ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any
nationalized Bank for a period of five years,
remaining 25% is ordered to be released in
favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK-upto para 5
SMM-para 6 to till end
CT:VP / LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14
