- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.201012 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUREKHA W/O SAMADHAN BHOSALE @ PATIL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK, 2. KUM. SOHAM S/O SAMADHAN BHOSALE @ PATIL, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. KUM. SAMRUDDI D/O SAMADHAN BHOSALE @ PATIL, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. SRI. APPASO S/O DIGAMBAR BHOSALE @ PATIL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 5. SMT.HIRABAI W/O APPASO BHOSALE @ PATIL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK. APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 SINCE MINORS ARE REP. BY THE NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/O DHAYATI, TQ: SANGOLA, DIST: SOLAPUR, NOW R/O DOBALE GALLI, VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 AND: 1. SRI. LATIF S/O MNIK ATTAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O ATTARAWADI, GHERADI, TQ: SANGOLA, DIST: SOLAPUR-413307. 2. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUBRAMANYAM BUILDING, II FLOOR NO.1, CLUB ROAD, CHENNAI-600002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, XIII VIJAYAPURA, IN M.V.C.NO.1640/2013 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the appellants - claimants for enhancement of compensation, awarded by the IV Additional District Judge and MACT-XIII, Vijaypura in MVC.No.1640/2013 dated 28.10.2016. 02. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – insurance company. 03. The case of the claimants before that Tribunal is that they have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act. for claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Samadhan Bhosle @ Patil, who died in the road traffic accident on 10.7.2013. It is alleged that on the said date near the land of one Balaji Uttam Ligade, when the deceased was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-45-U-1646 along with the pillion rider Vaibhav - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 Gaikwad, at the time a TATA ACE bearing Reg.No.MH-45- 9610 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died, whereas the pillion rider has sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, the claimants have filed the claim petition for claiming competition under the various grounds. 04. The respondent No.1 has filed written statement denying the age, income and occupation of the deceased and contended that the vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2 – insurance company. Hence, prayed for fastening the liability on the respondent No.2 - insurance company. 05. The respondent No.2 - insurance company also appeared and filed written statement and contended that the vehicle which was driven by the driver is having LMV non-transport license, whereas the vehicle used for commercial purpose, which is transport purpose. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 Therefore, the driver of the said vehicle was not having valid and effective license to drive the same. Therefore, the liability shall be exonerated and fix on the owner of the vehicle. 06. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- i) Whether the petitioners prove that Samadhan s/o Appaso Bhosle has died in the Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 10.07.2013 at about 03.15 hours, near the land of one Balaji Ligade, on Sangola to Kadlas road within the limits of kadlas village, on account of rash and negligent driving of LMV TATA Ace bearing No.MH-45/9610 by its drivers as alleged.? ii) Whether respondent No.2 proves that, there is a contributory negligence of motor cycle bearing No.MH-45/U-1646.? iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation.? If so, what is the quantum and from whom.? iv) What order or award.? v) Whether petitioners prove that, this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try this petition.? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 07. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant No.1 examined as PW.1 and got marked 16 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 16. The other claimants were also examined as PW.2 and 3, where the pillion rider claimed compensation, which was allowed. The respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. 08. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants in part by awarding the compensation of Rs.12,47,000/-. However, the liability was fixed on the owner of vehicle – respondent No.1 and absolved the liability on the respondent No.2. 09. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle, the claimants are before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle by ignoring the judgment passed by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, wherein it is held that any violation of the driving license will not exonerate the insurance company from the liability. It is further contended that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, even though, the Karnataka Legal Service Authority considers at Rs.7,000/- per month for the accident is of the year 2013. The Tribunal has not added 40% of the income towards the future prospects. The Tribunal has also not awarded the compensation towards loss of consortium which was payable to the claimants as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram2. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal. 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - the owner of the vehicle submitted that though the liability is fixed on the owner of the vehicle by Tribunal, but the owner of the vehicle has filed an appeal before the Single Judge of this Court in MFA.Nos.201285/2021 and MFA.No.201314/2021 by challenging the liability fixed on the owner of the vehicle and the injured - claimant has also filed an appeal in MFA.No.201019/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the appeals filed by the owner of the vehicle and fastened the liability on the insurance company. Hence, it is submitted that if any liability arisen for the paying compensation to the respondent No.1, the same shall be fastened on the insurance company. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 12. The respondent No.2 supported the judgment of the Tribunal. However, he fairly admits that the liability fixed on the insurance company by the learned Single Judge in the above said judgments. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 13. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the points that arise for our consideration as under:- i. Whether the Tribunal justified in fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle exonerating the insurance company which call for interference.? ii. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation.? If so to what extent.? 14. On careful reading of the Trial Court records as well as the impugned judgment, it is not in dispute that the deceased while riding the motorcycle on 10.07.2013 at 03:15 p.m. sustained injuries and died in the road traffic accident, which is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA ACE belongs to the respondent No.1. The pillion rider also said to be sustained injuries. Both the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured were filed claim petitions before the Tribunal and both the claim petitions were allowed in part and the compensation granted by the Tribunal. However, the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 Tribunal has fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver of the TATA ACE was holding only driving license LMV non-transport, whereas it is contended by the insurance company that it is a commercial vehicle and driver for the vehicle do not have any valid and effective driving license for driving the transport vehicle. Based upon the same, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the insurance company and fixed liability on the owner of the vehicle. 15. Admittedly, the owner of the vehicle challenged the liability fixed on it before the learned Single Judge of this Court in MFA.No.201285/2021 and MFA.No. 201314/2021 along with connected appeal in MFA.No. 201019/2021 filed by the injured. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 20.06.2023 allowed the appeals filed by the owner of the vehicle and fastened the liability on the insurance company, by referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 16. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been attained finality. Therefore, we are of the opinion that fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle required to be interfered and the liability shall be fixed on the insurance company. Hence, point No.1 answered accordingly in favour of the claimants and against the respondent No.2 – insurance company. 17. As regards to the computation of compensation, the claimants have contended that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. However, there is no document produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income should be considered as income of the deceased. As per the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority Chart, for the accident of the year 2013, Rs.7,000/- considered as notional income, whereas the Tribunal has considered only Rs.6,000/- per month, which is meager. Therefore, it is consider at Rs.7,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 has also not considered the future prospects of 40% as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others3. Therefore, we propose to consider 40% of the income as additional income towards the future prospects. If Rs.7,000/- per month considered as income, Rs.2,800/- would be the 40% of Rs.7,000/-. Then Rs.7,000/- + 2,800/- comes to Rs.9,800/-. There are 05 claimants. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another4, 1/4th of the income should be deducted towards personal expenditure. If 1/4th is deducted in Rs.9,800/- then it comes to Rs.2,450/-. If it is deducted in Rs.9,800/- it comes to Rs.7,350/- per month. The same is considered as Rs.7,350/- x 12 x 18, it comes to Rs.15,87,600/-. 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 2009 ACJ 1298 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 18. The Tribunal has also not properly considered the consortium as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma (supra). There are 05 claimants i.e., wife, children and aged parents. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium. 19. The claimants are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards the convictional heads i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards the transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. 20. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of consortium of married life and Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- towards care and guidance for minor children, which call for interference and the same is set aside and re-assessed by us. 21. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the enhancement compensation as under :- - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 Description Amount Loss of dependency Rs.15,87,600/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 5) Rs.2,00,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.18,17,600/- 22. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following; O R D E R i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 28.10.2016 passed in MVC.No.1640/2013 by the IV Addl. District Judge and Member MACT-XIII, Vijayapura, is modified. iii) The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.18,17,600/- as against Rs.12,47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2457-DB MFA No. 201012 of 2019 iv) The claimants are not entitled to an interest for the delayed period of 823 days as per the order dated 24.04.2025. v) The apportionment made by the Tribunal is unaltered. vi) The respondent No.2 – insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT:SI