[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mahadevamma vs Dhananjaya S K on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
M.F.A. No.3177/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3177/2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHADEVAMMA
W/O LATE MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
Digitally signed 2. K.M. CHINNASWAMY
by ARSHIFA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA
BAHAR KHANAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BOTH ARE R/AT KURUBA STREET
KARNATAKA KUDERU VILLAGE
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGAR 571316.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. DHANANJAYA S.K.
S/O KUNJANAN RAI .H
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO. 245, SAMRUDDI
1ST-B-CROSS
VIJAYA BANK COLONY EXTENSION
BASVANGUDI, BANGALORE 560043.
(OWNER OF M/C. KA-03-HE-3594).
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
M.F.A. No.3177/2020
HC-KAR
2. MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
BALLA CIRCLE BRANCH
MYSURU,
(INSURER OF M/C KA 03 HE 3594.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADV., FOR R2
V/O/DTD:10.03.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.797/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
M.F.A. No.3177/2020
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 01.08.2018 passed in MVC
No.797/2017 on the file of the Principal Judge, Court of
Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mysuru,
(for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken
up for final disposal.
3. Sri.Syed Abdul Saboor, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that this appeal is filed only to the
extent of deduction of 50% towards the personal and
living expenses of the deceased by the Tribunal by
ignoring the fact that the claimants are the wife and
adopted son of the deceased. Hence, he seeks to modify
the judgment and award of the Tribunal to the aforesaid
extent by allowing the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Smt.Manjula N.Tejaswi, learned
counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits
that the PW1, in her cross-examination, has clearly
admitted that she has not produced any document to show
that appellant No.2 is taken in adoption, therefore, in the
absence of any such evidence, he cannot be considered as
a dependent on the deceased. Hence, the deduction
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased
would be 50% which has been rightly considered by the
Tribunal. She submits that insofar as the income of the
deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has incorrectly
assessed the income at Rs.12,000/- per month, but it
should have been Rs.11,000/- per month as per the
notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA. She further
submits that the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/-
towards the loss of love and affection by the Tribunal is
impermissible in view of the subsequent decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the
appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
HC-KAR
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously
perused the material available on record.
6. It is not in dispute between the parties that in a
road accident that occurred on 06.07.2017, the husband
of the appellant No.1 i.e., Madegowda, died. The
contention in this appeal is only with regard to the
deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the
deceased. The claim petition and the appeal memo
indicate that the appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased
Madegowda and appellant No.2 is an adopted son of
deceased Madegowda. Though appellant No.1, who is
examined as PW1, in her cross-examination, has stated
that she has not produced the adoption deed, in my
considered view, based on such a statement in the cross-
examination, this Court cannot disbelieve the pleading and
evidence of PW1, who has clearly deposed before the
Tribunal that claimant No.2 is an adopted son and is a
dependent and is residing with them. Due to the accidental
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
HC-KAR
death of her husband they have lost the dependency. The
said evidence cannot be ignored. Hence, the contention of
the respondent has no merit.
7. Insofar as the income of the deceased
Madegowda is concerned, the respondent-Insurance
Company has raised objection to the assessment of the
income by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- per month. The said
objection also cannot be considered as there is no appeal
filed by the Insurance Company to disbelieve the evidence
and the present appeal is restricted only with regard to the
assessment of deduction towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased. Hence, I am of the considered
view that the compensation is required to be re-assessed
appropriately. Since the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the
wife and son and the dependents of the deceased
Madegowda, the appropriate deduction would be 1/3rd as
per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
HC-KAR
Corporation and another1. Thus, the appellants-
claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of
loss of dependency would be as under:
Rs.12,000 x 12 x 7 x 3/4 = Rs.7,56,000/-.
8. The claimants being the wife and son of the
deceased Madegowda are entitled to the compensation
under the head of loss of consortium at Rs.44,000/-
each including 10% escalation. The appellants-claimants
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/- under the
head of 'loss of estate' and Rs.16,500/- under the head
of 'funeral expenses & transportation of dead body'
including 10% escalation. Thus, in all, the appellants-
claimants shall be entitled to modified compensation under
the following heads:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Loss of estate 16,500
Funeral expenses & transportation of dead body 16,500
Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 x 2) 88,000
Loss of dependency 7,56,000
Total 8,77,000
(2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
HC-KAR
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.8,77,000/- as against Rs.6,24,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.8,77,000/- as
against Rs.6,24,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the
date of payment excluding the interest for
NC: 2026:KHC:16165
HC-KAR
the delayed period of 406 days as per the
order dated 17.03.2026.
d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within
a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
e) Out of the total compensation amount, the
appellant No.1 being the wife of the
deceased is entitled to Rs.7,50,000/- and
appellant No.2 being the son is entitled to
Rs.1,27,000/-.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5
