- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3144 MFA No. 201527 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201527 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. LAXMIBAI D/O GORAKHANATH KUMBAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O GORAKANATH KUMBAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: BOTH ARE KOTYAL, TQ: DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NINGAPPA S/O AMOGHI HANCHANAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. CHANNAMMA W/O NINGAPPA HANCHANAL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TJAPUR (H), TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAY P.HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3144 MFA No. 201527 of 2022 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND FASTING THE LIABILITY TO INSURANCE COMPANY RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T.- XII, VIJAYAPURA, AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.396/2017, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 04.08.2020 passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member M.A.C.T.- XII, Vijayapura, in MVC no.396/2017, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sanganagouda V.Biradar, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation and shifting liability upon insurer. It was submitted, on 17.09.2016 at about 20.30 hours, Gorakhanath Laxman Kumbar was pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-28/EL-1077, which was going on Vijaypur- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3144 MFA No. 201527 of 2022 Tikota road. Near Shankar Dhaba, due to skid, it met with accident. Gorakhanath sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment. Alleging loss of dependency, his children filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act. 3. On appearance, respondent no.1-owner did not appear. She was placed ex-parte. Respondent no.2-insurer admitted issuance of insurance policy in respect of motorcycle current on date of accident. It alleged contravention of terms and conditions of policy and Section 128 of MV Act. It also contended claimants were non-dependant major children of deceased and hence not entitled for compensation. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, wherein claimant no.2 was examined himself as PW.1, an eye-witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of respondent, its official was examined as RW-1 and Exs.R-1 to R3 were marked. 5. On consideration, tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider and claimants were entitled for compensation computed as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3144 MFA No. 201527 of 2022 Heads Compensation Amount Loss of income due to Dependency Rs.2,94,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs.40,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Towards funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.3,49,000/- 6. It however, held owner liable to pay same. Dis- satisfied with same, claimants are in appeal. 7. It was firstly submitted deceased was not rider of motorcycle and therefore, was third party. In view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu and Ors. V. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr., reported in 2018 (3) SCC 308, insurer would be required to pay compensation to claimants in first instance and thereafter recover same from insured. Failure to follow said ratio called for interference. 8. It was submitted accident occurred on 17.09.2016. Though claimants had stated that deceased was 61 years of age, doing agriculture and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, tribunal had considered monthly income of deceased at Rs.7,000/- which required correction. Further, it erred in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3144 MFA No. 201527 of 2022 deducting 50% towards personal expenses even though deceased was married and claimants were his children. It was further submitted escalation at 10% for every three years on compensation under conventional heads was also not added. On said grounds sought interference. 9. Sri Uday P.Honguntikar, learned counsel for respondent-insurer would oppose appeal. It was submitted admittedly, rider of motorcycle was carrying two pillion riders in violation of Section 128 of MV Act. Therefore, absolving liability of insurer was justified. Further claimants being son and daughter of deceased, aged 27 and 25 years respectively were rightly held non-dependants and therefore, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses was justified. Consequently assessment of compensation did not call for interference. 10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 11. From above and since claimants are assailing finding of tribunal on liability as well as seeking for enhancement of compensation, following points would arise for consideration: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3144 MFA No. 201527 of 2022 i) Whether tribunal was justified in absolving insurer from liability? ii) Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? 12. Admittedly, accident occurred due to skidding of motorcycle on which deceased was pillion rider. Rider of motorcycle was prosecuted for offence under Section 3 r/w Sections 181, 146 and 196 of MV Act, apart from Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. It is held in Pappu’s case (supra) that in a claim by third party, insurer would require to satisfy award in first instance and thereafter recover same from insured. 13. Secondly, insofar as contention about violation of Section 128 of MV Act, would stand covered by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Siddique v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57, wherein it is held: “14. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3144 MFA No. 201527 of 2022 14. In view of above, insurer cannot escape liability. Point no.1 is answered partly in affirmative. 15. Insofar as quantum, admittedly occurred on 17.09.2016.Though, deceased was 61 years of age and alleged to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture, same is not substantiated with material. In absence, tribunal assessed it notionally at Rs.7,000/-. But notional income for year 2016 being Rs.8,750/-, same has to be considered. Claimants are children of deceased. As per decision of HSC in cases of Sarala and Pranay seti, deduction towards personal expenses in case deceased were married would be 1/3rd. Therefore deduction of 50% by tribunal would not be justified. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency would have to be recomputed as follows: Rs.8,750/- - 1/3rd X 12 X 7 = Rs.4,90,000/-. 16. Apart from above, as per directions in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, there has to be addition of 10% to award under conventional heads for every three years. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3144 MFA No. 201527 of 2022 Since more than 6 years have lapsed after decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 20% has to be added. Thus, total compensation would be: 1. Loss of income due to dependency. (Petitioner no.1 entitled) Rs.4,90,000/- 2. Compensation towards parental consortium, estate and funeral expenses = 1,10,000/- + 20% Rs.1,32,000/- Total Rs.6,22,000/- Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,22,000/- as against Rs.3,49,000/- awarded by Tribunal. iii. Other conditions about rate of interest, deposit and release of compensation would apply as per award of Tribunal. iv. Respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation before Tribunal within six weeks. *v. Respondent no.2-insurer is held liable to pay said amount to claimant in first instance and thereafter recover same from insured without recourse to separate proceedings. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg*:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 *Corrected vide Chamber order dt.26/06/2025.