[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kumari Shruti D vs Sri Halesh G @ G Halesh on 27 March, 2026
-1-
MFA No. 6063 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6063 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMARI SHRUTI. D
D/O DIVAKAR K.B.
C/O RANGANATHA G.N.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O GOVINAHALU VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK-577 530.
2. KUMARI. BHAGYASHREE.D
D/O DIVAKAR K.B.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
NOW R/O C/O PRASHANTHA S.H.
YAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577 219.
3. KUMARA SHASHIDHAR S.D.
S/O DIVAKAR K.B.
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
4. KUMARI.SOUNDARYA S.D.
D/O DIVAKAR K.B.
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
5. SRI.DIVAKARA K.B.
S/O LATE BASAPPAGOWDA K
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.3 TO 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF
SANGAHALLI VILLAGE,
BELALAGERE POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 231.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SATISHCHANDRA R.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
MFA No. 6063 of 2021
AND:
1. SRI HALESH G @ G HALESH
S/O GURUMURTHYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OWNER CUM RIDER OF THE
VEHICLE PASSION PRO
KA-17-ED-4629 (HERO HONDA BIKE)
R/O KANIVEBILACHI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 231.
2. THE MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
OFFICE; 1ST FLOOR, A.M.ARCADE,
C.G.HOSPITAL ROAD,
DAVANGERE-577 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(R2-ABSENT,
R1-SERVED,UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.873/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
AMACT, HARIHARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the MV Act' for short) by
the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated
01.10.2021 passed in MVC No.873/2019, on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Harihara (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case before the Tribunal are
that:
On 04.07.2019, at about 09.30 a.m., deceased
Smt.Geethamma and respondent No.1 were proceeding on
a Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-17-ED-4629 from
Sangahalli Village to Arundi Village for attending a funeral
ceremony of their relative, at that time, the respondent
No.1 was riding the offending vehicle in high speed and
suddenly, one dog came across the road and as a result,
the respondent No.1 lost his control over the offending
vehicle and hit the dog and went on it. Due to which, the
deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries. She
was admitted to SSIMS Hospital, Davangere but
succumbed to the injuries at 9.00 p.m. The claimants are
her husband and children. Hence, claimants filed claim
petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking
compensation of Rs.29,00,000/-.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and
2 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed
their separate statement of objections. Respondent No.1
in his statement of objections has denied the age,
occupation and income of the deceased and contends that
he had valid and effective driving licence to drive the class
of the vehicle as on the date of accident and policy was in
force and hence, Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation and prays for dismissal of the petition
against him.
5. Respondent No.2 in its statement of objections
contends that owner cum rider of the offending motorcycle
did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the
time of the accident and has violated the terms and
conditions of the policy. In view of the clear breach of
terms and conditions of the policy, respondent No.2 is not
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Hence,
prays for dismissal of the petition against it.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The
petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked
documents at Exs.P1 to P-9. The respondents have not
let any evidence on there behalf and respondent No.2 has
produced three documents and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3.
7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the
documents, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in-part
and awarded compensation of Rs.17,78,000/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2 is absent. Even though notice is served to
respondent No.1, he remained unrepresented.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the occurrence of accident and death of said Geethamma
is not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider
the same. The contention of the claimants is that the
Tribunal has erred in taking the notional income as
Rs.14,000/- per month as the deceased was doing
Agriculture work along with Milk vending business and was
earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month.
Therefore, compensation under the head 'loss of
dependency' may be re-calculated. He further submits
that amount of compensation awarded under the
conventional heads is on the lower side. It is also
contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not
adding 25% of future prospects to the notional income
without considering or appreciating the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is also contended by
him that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the
Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 &
connected matters disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding
compensation towards 'loss of consortium'. He therefore
requests this Court to enhance the compensation by
modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal and
enhance the compensation.
10. It is contended that the deceased was doing
Agricultural work and Milk Vending business and was also
doing tailoring work and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month. The accident has taken place in the year 2019 and
as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, income of the deceased is taken at
Rs.14,000/- per month. As the deceased was aged 48
years as on the date of accident, 25% has to be added to
the income of the deceased towards future prospects as
per Pranay sethi supra. The multiplier applicable is '13'.
Since there are five dependants, 1/4th of her income has
to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly,
on re-determination of the 'loss of dependency', the same
works out to be:
14,000 + 25% x 12 x 13 x 3/4 = Rs.20,47,500/-
11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection' to the
appellants. Hence, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded.
Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 5) as per the law laid
down in Magma case supra.
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and
Rs.10,000/- towards 'transportation of dead body', and
Rs.20,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. Hence, the same
are just and reasonable.
13. Thus, the total compensation re-determined by
this Court under various heads are as follows:
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 20,47,500/-
2. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 2,00,000/-
3. Transportation of dead : Rs. 10,000/-
body
4. Towards funeral expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss of estate : Rs. 20,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 22,87,500/-
14. The total compensation re-determined by this
Court works out to Rs.22,87,500/- as against
Rs.17,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants -
claimants are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.22,87,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of
filing of the petition till realization.
15. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.873/2019, dated
01.10.2021, passed by the Senior Civil Judge
& Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
Harihara is modified;
- 10 -
iii) The appellants - claimants are entitled for
total compensation of Rs.22,87,500/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till
realization;
iv) The compensation amount along with accrued
interest if any, shall be deposited by the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company,
within a period of eight weeks from the date
of filing of the petition till realization;
v) Apportionment and disbursement of the
compensation amount shall be as per the
impugned Award of the Tribunal.
vi) No order as to costs.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MH/-
