[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gangawwa W/O Shankar Dalawai vs Shri. Suresh Satteppa Asangi on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
MFA No. 101570 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102968 of 2015
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.101570/2017(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102968/2015(MV-D)
IN MFA No. 101570/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GANGAWWA
W/O. SHANKAR DALAWAI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. SIDDALING
S/O. SHANKAR DALAWAI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
CHANDRASHEKAR
R/O: HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad bench
Date: 2026.03.23 10:02:33
3. JAYASHREE
+0000
D/O. SHANKAR DALAWAI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
MFA No. 101570 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102968 of 2015
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SHRI. SURESH SATTEPPA ASANGI,
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. TO THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NMEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.C.
ACT., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
RAIBAG, IN MVC NO.1318/2012 DATED 22.10.2013, INSOFAR
AS FIXING THE LIABILITY ON RESPONDENT NO.1 BY FIXING
THE SAME ON RESPONDENT NO.2, AND AWARD THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION, BY
ENHANCING ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 102968/2015
BETWEEN:
SURESH SATTEPPA ASANGI,
AGE:45 YEARS OCC:AGRL.,
R/O:HARUGERI, TQ:RAIBAG,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAWWA
W/O. SHANKAR DALAWAI,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
MFA No. 101570 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102968 of 2015
HC-KAR
AGE:43 YEARS, OCC:NIL.
2. SIDDALING
S/O. SHANKAR DALAWAI,
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:NIL.
3. JAYASHREE
D/O. SHANKAR DALAWAI,
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:NIL.
R1 TO R3 ARE
R/O:HARUGERI,
TQ:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.C.
ACT., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2013 PASSED BY COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAIBAG, IN
M.V.C.NO.1318/2012 FASTENING THE LIABILITY OF
APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
MFA No. 101570 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 102968 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 22.10.2013
passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Raibag ('Tribunal',
for short) in MVC no.1318/2012, these appeals are filed.
2. MFA no.101570/2017 is filed by claimants for
enhancement of compensation as well as challenging finding on
liability while MFA no.102968/2015 is filed by owner
challenging finding on liability.
3. Sri Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by owner of vehicle. It was
submitted that at 7:00 p.m. on 05.06.2012 one Shankar
Dalawai was riding his bicycle on his on left side of road in
Harugeri village, when driver of Tractor no.KA-23/TB-1281 with
trailers no.KA-23/TA-4795 and 4796 attached, drove it in rash
and negligent manner and dashed against bicycle. In accident,
Shankar sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to same
during treatment. His wife and two minor children filed claim
petition against owner and insurer of tractor vehicles under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
HC-KAR
4. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all counts, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant no.1 deposed as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to
P6. Respondents did not lead oral evidence, but got marked
copy of insurance policy with consent as Ex.R1.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by its driver and
claimants were entitled for compensation of ₹3,54,920/- with
interest at 6% per annum. But on ground that insurance policy
issued in respect of tractor was with trailer no.KA-23/TB-1282
and 1283 and at time of accident, some other trailers were
attached in violation of terms and conditions of policy, Tribunal
eschewed liability of insurer.
6. It was submitted, since accident was head on
collision between tractor and bicycle, regardless of whether
trailers attached were insured, insurer of tractor cannot escape
liability. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied
upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt.Honnamma
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
HC-KAR
and Ors., 2025 INSC 625. On said ground sought for allowing
appeal.
7. Sri Santosh S.Hattikatagi, learned counsel while
adopting above submission insofar as liability submitted
claimants were seeking for enhancement. It was submitted, as
on date of accident, deceased Shankar was 55 years of age
earning ₹15,000/- per month from agriculture. However,
Tribunal unanimously considered ₹4,000/- as monthly income
and awarded inadequate compensation. It was submitted,
Tribunal erred in not adding 10% to future prospects as held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
AIR 2017 SC 5157. It also erred in applying multiplier of '10'
instead of '11'. It was submitted, compensation awarded under
conventional heads was also not inconsonance with decision in
Pranay Sethi and sought for allowing appeal.
8. On other hand, Sri GN Raichur, learned counsel for
respondent - insurer opposed appeals. It was submitted, there
was no dispute that some other uninsured trailers were
attached at time of accident in violation of terms and conditions
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
HC-KAR
of policy and therefore, Tribunal had rightly discharged liability
on insurer. It was submitted that Tribunal had granted just
compensation leaving no scope for enhancement.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and award.
10. From above since owner as well as claimants are in
appeal challenging finding on liability as well as for
enhancement of compensation, points that arise for
consideration are:
1. Whether finding of Tribunal on liability of
insurer calls for interference? and
2. Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed?
11. Point no.1: Admittedly, accident occurred due to
head on collision between bicycle on which claimant was riding
and tractor. Hon'ble Supreme Court has turned down similar
contention about tractor with uninsured trailers causing
accident eschewing liability of insurer. It noted, accident was
caused by tractor and therefore insurer was held liable. Said
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
HC-KAR
ratio would rarely apply to present case. Point no.1 is
accordingly answered in 'affirmative'.
12. Point no.2: Though claimants stated that deceased
was 55 years of age, earning ₹15,000/- per month from
agriculture, same was not substantiated. Therefore, Tribunal
was justified in assessing it notionally. But notional income for
year 2012 is ₹6,500/- and therefore, same has to be
considered. As per ratio in Pranay Sethi, in case of self-
employed aged between 50 and 60, addition towards future
prospects has to be 10%. Since there are three dependents,
deduction towards personal expenses has to be at 1/3rd and
multiplier applicable would be '11'. Thus, compensation towards
loss of dependency would be:
₹6,500 (+ 10%) (- 1/3rd) x 12 x 11 = ₹6,29,193/-.
13. In addition, claimants would be entitled to
₹40,000/- each towards spousal consortium and filial
consortium. Apart from same, they would be entitled for
₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹15,000/- towards
loss of estate. Since more than 6 years have lapsed after
decision in Pranay Sethi, they would be entitled for addition of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
HC-KAR
escalation at 20% to award under conventional head i.e.
₹30,000/-. Thus, total compensation would be as follows:
Sl.No. Head Amount
(1) Loss of dependency ₹6,29,193/-
(2) Loss of spousal consortium ₹1,20,000/-
and filial consortium,
(3) Towards loss of estate and ₹30,000/-
funeral expenses
(4) Towards escalation ₹30,000/-
Total ₹8,09,193/-
14. Point no.2 is answered 'partly in affirmative' as
above. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. MFA no.102968/2015 is allowed.
ii. Fastening of liability on owner is set aside.
iii. Insurer is held liable to pay compensation.
iv. Amount in deposit, if any is ordered to be
refunded to the appellant.
v. MFA no.101570/2017 is allowed in part.
vi. Claimants are held entitled for reassessed
compensation of ₹8,09,193/- as against
₹3,54,920/- with interest at 6% per annum
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4297
HC-KAR
from date of petition till realisation excluding
192 days delay in filing appeal.
vii. Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced
compensation before Tribunal within a period
of eight weeks.
viii. On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release
compensation in favour of claimants since
minor claimants would have attained age of
majority during pendency of appeal.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
