- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201638 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MALLAMMA CHENDAKE W/O LATE SUBHASH, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. JETINGARAYA @ JETINGA CHENDAKE S/O LATE SUBHASH, AGE: 33 YEARS, 3. SRI SIDDARAM CHENDAKE S/O LATE SUBHASH, AGE: 32 YEARS, ALL R/O MULEGAON, TQ. SOUTH SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR MIDC, NOW AT PLOT NO. 58, BANK COLONY, KARUNESHWAR NAGAR, KALABURAGI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. YOGESHWAR S/O VIJAYKUMAR JOSHI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO. MH-12/JN-3003, R/O SHAKTI NIVAS, 64, SHAHAJANANDA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, PUNE CITY, PUNE-411 020, (MAHARASHTRA STATE). 2. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., R Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 CENTRAL SOUTH WING, 4TH FLOOR, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, SANTA CRUZ, EAST MUMBAI, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, ASIAN PLAZA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK, S.V.P. CHOWK, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 13.01.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 514/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT AT KALABURAGI, AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.13,88,100/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS COURT AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.514/2019 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi, dated 18.03.2021, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 07.04.2019 at about 8.30 A.M., the deceased Subhash along with his grandson was returning from temple on the motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BX-7112, near Rajesh Kothe Vidyalaya, a Mahindra XUV bearing No.MH-12/JN-3003 came from Solapur road side in high speed and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased Subhash and his grandson fell down and Subhash died at the spot. The petitioners, who are the wife and the two sons of deceased Subhash filed the claim petition contending that the deceased Subhash was aged 54 years, earning Rs.15,000/- per month by coolie work and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. They contended that they were dependent upon the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 income of the deceased and therefore, adequate compensation be awarded from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed their written statements. The respondent No.1 denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the Mahindra vehicle, but however, the vehicle was being driven by one Vaibhav, who was having a valid driving license and as such, the liability if any, has to be fastened upon the respondent No.2. 5. The respondent No.2 denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased, alleged that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. It also contended that the driver of the Mahindra vehicle was not having a valid driving license and as such there are violations of terms and conditions of the policy. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, Ex.P1 to 14 were marked in evidence. The respondent No.2 examined its official as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,31,900/- under the following heads: Towards dependency and loss of future income Rs.9.61.884/- Towards Consortium 1. Spousal Consortium Rs.40,000/- Towards Loss of estate & funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- Total Compensation Rounded off Rs.10,31,844/- Rs.10,31,900/- 7. While coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal held that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 being the adult sons of deceased are not the dependents and as such there being only one dependent, the personal expenses of the deceased is to be taken at 50%. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 8. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal have approached this Court in appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal erred in deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased Subhash and their being Catena of decisions which laid down that the married daughters and adult son are also being legal heirs, are entitled for compensation and therefore, the deduction of 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased was incorrect. He submits that the reliance of the Tribunal on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s T.Chandranaika and others in MFA No.5465/2016 was erroneous. He further submits that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is correct and only the personal expenses and the consortium which needs to be considered by this Court. He submits that the petitioner No.1 is entitled for spousal consortium and the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for filial love and affection. 10. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgment in the case of Sadhana Tomar and Others vs. Ashok Kushwaha and Others1 and Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,2. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-insurance company submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered the dependency of the petitioner No.1 and was right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 since they were major sons earning their own livelihood. She also submit that the judgments relied by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant do not lay down the ratio and therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance CO. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and Others3 would hold good. Therefore, she submit that when the Apex 1 2025 SCC Online SC 554 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 283 3 (2010) 12 SCC 378 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 Court in the case of Pranay Sethi clearly held that the compensation under the head of consortium has to be Rs.40,000/- as upper limit and each of the claimants cannot claim a sum of Rs.40,000/- as consortium or for loss of filial love and affection. He submit that the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant not being laid down any law, the ratio decidendi in the case of Pranay Sethi would hold the field. 12. The points that arise are: A. Whether the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the legal heirs and the Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased? B. Whether each of the claimants or the dependents are entitled for consortium or love and affection at Rs.40,000/- with due escalation as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 Point A: 13. So far as the first point is concerned, it appears that the question is no more res integra. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender and Others4, and later the said view being reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Tomar referred supra, laid down the law clearly. In the case of Sadhana Tomar, the Apex Court places reliance on para 16 in the case of N. Jayasree V/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.5 which reads as below: “16. In our view, the term “legal representative” should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the 4 (2020) 11 SCC 356 5 (2022) 14 SCC 712 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation.” 14. Thereafter, in the case of Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd6 the Apex Court places reliance on the judgment in the case of Birendar (supra), and holds that even the married daughters are also the dependents within the meaning covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. In para 9, it was held as below: “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on the dependents of the deceased. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors., had expounded that major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, irrespective of 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 283 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not. The Court went on to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning merely Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, they were largely dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her” 15. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are also the legal heirs and as such they are entitled for compensation. Once their entitlement is held in the affirmative, the consequence will be that the personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd but not 50% as held by the Tribunal. The reason for this appears to be that a person who is aged 54 years, having wife and two children would definitely contribute more towards family than on personal self. Therefore, to construe that a head of the family would spend more on his personal self would not be a proper conclusion in the Indian Scenario. Hence, the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased Subhash was aged 54 years has to be taken at 1/3rd. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 16. Thus, the Point ‘A’ is answered accordingly in the negative. Point B: 17. The second point to be considered by this Court is about the compensation under the head of consortium or loss of filial love and affection. It is pertinent to note that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) lays down that the dependents are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium or filial love and affection. It does not consider as to whether the said sum has to be awarded per dependent or together. 18. Later the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magma Genreal Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram @ Churu Ram7 considered the meaning of the word consortium, spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. After discussing about the same in 7 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 paragraph 21, it calculated compensation amount in paragraph 25 and held that each of the dependent is entitled for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. It also proceeded to determine the loss of love and affection at Rs.50,000/- per dependent. Of course, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- per person under the head of loss of love and affection was not contemplated under the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 19. Thereafter, the Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors. 8 observed as below: “The notice in terms of the order dated 13.10.2020 was confined only to two aspects i.e. the sum for loss of love and affection being Rs.50,000/- and for loss of consortium for Rs.40,000/- could not have been granted to each of the three dependents separately but in toto and that would be the amount quantified. This was in terms of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. - (2017) 16 SCC 680. 8 Civil Appeal Nos .2410 of 2023, dt 27/03/2023 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 We have heard learned counsel for parties. Learned counsel for the respondents did endeavour to persuade us that it should be per the legal heir by relying on Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. - 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546. We are, however, of the view that the total amount has to be assigned under a particular heading and that will go depending on the number of legal heirs present.” 20. The precise question for which the notice was issued to the parties by the Apex Court was to consider whether the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection; and Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection could be granted to each of the dependents. The Court comes to conclusion that the total amount has to be assigned under the particular heading and that will go depending on the number of legal representatives present, it did not approve the grant of sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of love and affection. 21. In the judgment of Sadhana Tomar (supra), the Apex Court has calculated the compensation under the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 head of loss of consortium per each of the legal representative of the deceased. Further, a similar method was adopted by the Apex Court in the case of Seema Rani (supra). 22. In view of the above catena of decisions, it must be observed that it is the consistent trend of the Supreme Court that each of the dependent is entitled for the sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of either loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium or filial consortium. As held in the case of Magma (supra), consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about status and worth of actual relationships. 23. It was observed that the modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a child consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of death of a child. Therefore, it appears that the judgments referred supra have come to recognize the fact that each of the dependent of the deceased is also entitled for the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 compensation under the head of consortium. The hither to view that it was only spouse who would be entitled for consortium appears to have withered away and each of the dependent has been recognized to be entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium. 24. It is also relevant to note that the consistent view of the Apex Court in the above decisions reflects an obiter dicta. No doubt none of the judgments referred supra lay down as to why each of the dependent is entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium, except Magma, which to some extent was differed in Bhagat singh Rawat. When there is no ratio decidendi in respect of the entitlement under the head of consortium, then the obiter of the Apex Court holds good. The view of the Apex Court being consistent in this regard, each of the dependents are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- per person. 25. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as in the case of Bhagat Singh - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 Rawat (supra), there shall be enhancement of 10% for each three years. 26. In the result, the point ‘B’ raised above is answered to the effect that each of the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium either filial or parental compensation. Present Case: 27. Coming to the income of the deceased, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income of the deceased has been properly assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.14,575/- [(13250 notional income + 1325 (10% future prospects)] x 12 x 2/3 x 11 = Rs.12,82,600/- by considering the personal expenses of the deceased at 1/3rd and adopting the multiplier of 11. 28. The consortium of Rs.40,000/- has to be given escalation of 10% at each three years and it comes to - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 Rs.52,000/- for 9 years. Therefore, the petitioners are together entitled for a sum of Rs.52,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,56,000/-. 29. Similarly the petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of loss of estate and a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of funeral expenses. 30. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for total sum of Rs.14,77,600/- under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,82,600/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,56,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.19,500/- 4. Towards funeral expenses Rs.19,500/- Total Rs.14,77,600/- Less: The amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.10,31,900/- Enhancement Rs.4,45,700/- 31. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2179 MFA No. 201638 of 2021 (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.4,45,700/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP,SDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 CT: AK