The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8052 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O AMBALAGERE UPPARAHATTI, HIRIYUR TALUK. 2. SMT. LAXMIDEVAI W/O ANJINAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O THIPNAKOTE, CHALLAKERE TQ, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka 3. SUNKAMMA, W/O THIPPANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 40 YEAS, R/ BELAGUPPA, KALYANADURGA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH STATE. 4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O THIPPESWAMI, NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O THIPNAKOTE, CHALLAKERE TQ, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 5. SRI. RAMANJANEYA, S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O AMBALAGERE UPPARAHATTI, HIRIYUR TALUK.
Legal Reasoning
6. SMT. THIPPAMMA, W/O RAMANJINI @ RAMANJANEYA, NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O SHANTHI NAGR, BELLARY TOWN. 7. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, W/O ANJIJAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O HOSAHALLI (MANNEKOTE) CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 8. SMT. SHARDAMMA, W/O GOPALAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O AMBALAGERE UPPARAHATTI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 9. SMT. SHAVITHRAMMA, W/O RAMALINGAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O JADEGONDANAHALLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 10. SMT. LAITHAMMA, W/O RAMANJINAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O AMBALAGERE UPPARAHATTI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 599 (BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR AND: 1. P. MAHAMMED USMAN, S/O ABDUL RAHEEM, AGED MAJOR, R/O ASHOKA ROAD, HIRIYUR TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 599. 2. THE MANAGER, BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE FEM, ICON, SY. NO.28, BALLET, DODDANAKUNTI, RING ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037. (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2021, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.285/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT This is the claimants’ appeal against judgment and award dated 4.03.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hiriyur (for short the tribunal) in MVC No.285/2012, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.06.2012 at about 8.00 a.m., deceased-Chandrappa was going by walk in front of a hospital, at Hiriyur town, at that time rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-16-W-6489, rode his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. As a result, Chandrappa sustained grievous injuries and while under going treatment at Government Hospital, Chitradurga, he succumbed to the injuries. Deceased was aged about 60 years; was a coolie and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was contributing his earnings - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR to the family. Claimants are sons and daughters of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending motorcycle. Both the respondents have denied the allegations made against them. Respondent No.1 contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2; in the event if compensation is awarded, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same. 5. Respondent No.2-insurer in addition to denying the contents of the claim petition, also contended that its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its determination. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR 7. The claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.7. Respondents have not led any oral evidence, but marked Ex.R.1. 8. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the pleading and evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The Tribunal found that the claimants are major sons and daughters of the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. And awarded the following amount of compensation: Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. Particulars Loss of dependency Transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequles ceremony expenses Loss of love and affection Total Amount Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- 9. The Tribunal directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., by the impugned judgment. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding just and reasonable amount of compensation. The deceased was aged about 60 years. He was not disabled to work. He was earning and using it to the benefit of the family. Claimants are none other than sons and daughters of the deceased; he had love and affection in their favour. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal that he would spend his entire earnings on himself is not probable and correct. It is not the culture of our country. The Tribunal has not considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors1. Therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that award passed by the Tribunal is proper and it does not call for any interference. Claimants are aged between 20 to 40 years; all the daughters are married and 1AIR 2020 SC 434 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR sons are majors and they have their own independent source of income. Even wife of the deceased is no more. Under those circumstances, question of 'dependency' do not arise. He also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in MFA No.4096/2021 dated 29.03.2023, in the case of Ashwathappa and Others Vs. Ravichandra T and Others. He further submits that even if claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency', 75% of earnings of the deceased shall be deducted towards personal expenses. He further submits that compensation cannot be awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'. The deceased had 10 children. Therefore, as per the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, maximum of Rs.40,000/- could be awarded towards 'loss of consortium'. Therefore, prayed to recalculate the compensation and pass the suitable orders. 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR 12. The fact of the accident and death of Chandrappa in a vehicle accident is not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the findings of the Tribunal. 13. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, there are no materials to believe the said contention. The Tribunal has not assessed the income of deceased. Present accident is of the year 2014. Following the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority(KSLSA) notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Post mortem report reveal that his age was about 60 years. His age must be between 61 to 65 years; the suitable multiplier applicable is '17'. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the wife of Chandrappa predeceased him and claimants are major sons and daughters are already married. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the present - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR case, 50% of the income is deducted towards personal expenses. 14. The law laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in MFA No.4096/2021 (supra), cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birender (Supra), even if the dependents are major sons and married daughters, they are entitled to compensation. The same is followed in the present case. 15. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has given guidelines to award compensation under conventional heads. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others3 cannot be made 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR applicable, to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the following amount of compensation is awarded: Sl. No Heads Amount awarded by this court 1. Loss of dependency (7,000 Rs.2,94,000/- X 12 X 7 X 50%) 2. Funeral expenses 3. Loss of estate 4. Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.3,64,000/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,50,000/- Enhancement Rs.2,14,000/- 16. The claimants are entitled for interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization excluding the delayed period of 910 days. Undisputedly, respondents are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Decision
17. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:21672 MFA No. 8052 of 2016 HC-KAR ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 04.03.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hiriyur, in MVC.No.285/2012 is modified; iii) The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, excluding delayed period of 910 days in filing the appeal. iv) The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposits and release shall remain unaltered. Draw the modified award accordingly. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7