- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463 MFA No. 200038 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200038 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. ANUSUYA W/O LATE BALAJI SINGH, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. SHARDA D/O LATE BALAJI SINGH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL BOTH ARE R/O: MUDDIPETE, RAICHUR – 584 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT.SHANTABAI SUBHASH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJUNATH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF BAJAJ PULSAR-180 NO. KA-25/S-4763, R/O: H.NO.11-12-23, BRESTWARPETH, RAICHUR – 584 101. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, K.K. COMPLEX, RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463 MFA No. 200038 of 2023 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.01.2014, PASSED BY THE MACT AND II-ADJ AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.242/2012, AND PLEASE TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION, AND ALSO LIABILITY TO BE FIXED ON THE RESPONDENT NO.2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Appeal is filed against judgment and award dated 25.01.2014 passed by Member, MACT and II Additional District Judge, Raichur (for short 'tribunal') in MVC no.242/2012, this appeal is filed. 2. Smt.Patil Shantabai Subhash submitted appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. On 08.03.2012 when Rajeshwar Singh was pillion rider on motorcycle no.KA- 25/S-4763 ridden by Ramesh towards Shaktinagar, Raichur, due to cattle coming across road, rider lost control and dashed motorcycle against electrical pole and caused accident. Due to same, Rajeshwar Singh sustained severe injuries and even though rushed to hospital, succumbed. His mother and minor sister filed claim petition against owner and insurer of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463 MFA No. 200038 of 2023 motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Even Rider of motorcycle filed MVC no.345/2012. Both were clubbed. 3. Owner did not appear. He was placed ex-parte. Insurer opposed claim petition denying liability on ground that policy in question was an ‘Act Liability Only’ Policy. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimants were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P.13 were got marked. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 and policy copy was got marked as Ex.R1. 4. On consideration, tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider and claimants were entitled for compensation as follows :- 1. Loss of dependency `6,48,000/- 2. Loss of estate `10,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection `1,00,000/- 4. Transportation and funeral expenses `25,000/- Total `7,83,000/- 5. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal. It was submitted deceased was pillion rider on motorcycle, which was duly insured. Therefore, as per decision in case of Bajaj - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463 MFA No. 200038 of 2023 Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. BM Niranjan and Anr.1, insurer could not escape liability. 6. On quantum, it was submitted claimant was working as Vehicle Stand Maintainer at SNT Talkies, Raichur and earning `6,000/- per month. Tribunal accepted it. When notional income for year 2012 was `6,500/-, tribunal was not justified in taking it at `6,000/-. Tribunal also erred in not adding future prospects to monthly income. Even award under conventional heads was improper and sought enhancement. 7. On other hand, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. Relying upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Mahadev Pandurang Patil and Anr.2, he submitted, in case of an Act Liability Only Policy, insurer could not be held liable for risk of pillion rider without payment of additional premium. Therefore, tribunal was justified in absolving liability of insurer. Hence, no interference was warranted. 1 2007 (6) AIR Kar R 597 2 ILR 2012 KAR 1841 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463 MFA No. 200038 of 2023 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records. 9. 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: “1. Whether finding of tribunal on liability calls for interference? 2. Whether claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as prayed for?” Point no.1: 10. Perusal of Ex.R1 reveals that insurance coverage subscribed to by owner in this case is Act Liability Only, without payment of additional premium for covering risk of pillion rider. In BM Niranjan’s case (supra), policy under consideration was Package Policy, whereas Division Bench of this Court in Mahadev Pandurang Patil’s case (supra) was dealing with Act Liability Only policy. Therefore, ratio laid down by Division Bench would be attracted. Consequently, finding of tribunal absolving insurer and holding owner liable would be justified. Point no.1 is answered in negative. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463 MFA No. 200038 of 2023 Point no.2 : 11. On quantum, in claim petition it was stated, deceased Rajeshwar Singh was working as Vehicle Stand Maintainer and earning `6,000/- per month. Tribunal considered said amount. Merely on ground that notional income for relevant period was `6,500/-, claimants would not be justified in seeking for consideration of said amount. 12. Claimants are mother and minor sister, while deceased was self-employed bachelor aged 20 years. Tribunal rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses. Even adoption of multiplier ‘18’ would be justified. But, tribunal has not added future prospects to monthly income. As per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.3, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, computation of loss of dependency would be : (`6,000/- + 40%) x 50% x 12 x 18 = `9,07,200/-. 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463 MFA No. 200038 of 2023 13. As per decision in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.4 each of claimants would be entitled to `40,000/- towards loss of consortium, apart from, `15,000/- towards loss of estate and `15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in common. As per decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) there has to be addition of 10% to award under conventional heads for every three years. Since more than six years have elapsed after rendering said decision, claimants would be entitled for addition of 20% (i.e. `22,000/-) to award under conventional heads. Claimants are entitled for reassessed compensation as follows:- 1. Loss of dependency `9,07,200/- 2. Loss of Consortium (`40,000/- x 2) + 20% `96,000/- 3. Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses `36,000/- Total `10,39,200/- Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative. Hence, following : ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 25.01.2014 passed by Member, MACT and II Additional District Judge, Raichur in MVC 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3463 MFA No. 200038 of 2023 no.242/2012 is modified, claimants are held entitled for reassessed compensation of `10,39,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit, from owner. (ii) On deposit, conditions about deposit/release as per tribunal award shall apply proportionately to enhanced compensation. (iii) Dismissal of claim petition against respondent no.2 - insurer is upheld. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50