- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201551 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. LAXMI W/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. RAMESH S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 3. SHANTHA KUMAR S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 4. SURESH S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 5. BASAMMA W/O LATE GYANAPPA KAIRAWADGI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/O CHIKKA KADABUR, TQ. SINDHANUR, NOW R/O NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR-584 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMESH @ RAMANNA K. S/O SHIVAPPA KAIRAWADAGI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TEMPO TOOFAN BRG. ITS REGN. NO. KA.36/M-9556, R/O CHIKKA KADABUR, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 2. VIRUPANNA S/O HUCCHAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TOOFAN BRG. ITS REGN. NO. KA.36/M-9556, R/O OPPOSITE TO S.L.V LODGE, GULBARGA ROAD, LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 122. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.NO. 12-10-89/1, 1ST FLOOR, ANAGA COMPLEX, NEAR CHANDRA MOULESHWAR CHOWK, RAICHUR-584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R3; V/O DTD. 20.01.2022, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.04.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT., AT RAICHUR IN MVC NO. 85/2019. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. By consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC 85/2019 passed by learned II-Addl. District & Sessions Judge & M.A.C.T, Raichur, dated 08.04.2021, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 19.06.2017, the deceased Mallappa was returning in a Tempo Toofan vehicle bearing No.KA-36/M-9556 to his native place and it was driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, insured by respondent No.3. On Shorapur-Lingasugur main road, the driver drove the same in a negligent manner and dashed to a road side electric pole resulting in the said vehicle turning turtle. The said Mallappa who was inmate of the said vehicle sustained injuries to his head and other parts of the body and he was shifted to Government Hospital Shorapur and thereafter to Basaveshwara Teaching & General Hospital, Kalaburagi. On 22.06.2017, he was shifted to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore and during the course of the treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 13.8.2017. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 The petitioners contended that they were the dependents of deceased Mallappa and as such they are entitled for compensation from the owner and insurer of the said the vehicle. A case came to be registered against the driver of the vehicle in Crime No.162/17 and the driver was prosecuted. They further contended that the deceased Mallappa was aged about 51 years, running a grocery shop and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and as an agriculturist, he used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. Therefore, they claimed adequate compensation from the respondents. 5. Despite service of notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear but however, the petition against respondent No.1 was dismissed as not pressed. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared and filed their written statements. The respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the vehicle was not at all negligent in driving the same and since a buffalo came across the road, he applied the brakes and as such he lost control and hit the electric - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 pole. It was contended that the driver had a valid driving license and as such any liability has to be fastened upon the respondent No.3. 6. The respondent No.3-insurance company contended that the accident occurred on a private agriculture land and therefore, it is not liable. It also raised the contention that the driver was not having a valid driving licence and he had allowed more than the permitted passengers in the said vehicle to travel. It also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and termed the claim as highly exorbitant and imaginary. 7. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to 15 were marked in evidence. The official of the respondent No.3 was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked. 8. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,49,431/- under following heads. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 Medical expenses Rs.5,66,631/- Loss of dependency Rs.7,12,800/- Loss of estate Rs.0,15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.0,40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.0,15,000/- Total Rs.13,49,431/- 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this court in appeal. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses, but it should have deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses owing to the larger family which consisted of the 5 petitioners. The reasoning of the Tribunal that some of the petitioners were not the dependents of the deceased could not have been adopted. Secondly, he submits that the quantum of the compensation is not properly assessed. He submit that medical bills as per Ex.P13 was not considered and the income of the deceased was also improperly adopted. He - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 also submits that the future prospects were not considered by the Tribunal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would submit that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is proper and correct. He submits that the quantum of the compensation amount, so far as it relates to the income of the deceased, is proper and no indulgence is required in the matter. During course of arguments, he submitted that in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Tomar and Others V/s Ashok Kushwaha and Others1, the adult members of the family even though they were not dependents, come within the purview of the legal heirs and therefore, they are also entitled for compensation and as such appropriate order may be passed in that regard. 12. The perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the Tribunal in para 9 of the judgment, holds that the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the major sons and 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309, 2025 SCC Online SC 554 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 they are not dependents on the deceased and therefore, it holds that 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses. 13. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Anand Pal2, lays down that the married siblings of the claimant therein are also entitled for the compensation. 14. Thereafter, in the case of Sadhana Tomar (supra), the Apex court has considered as many as 5 judgments and came to the conclusion that the view of the Apex Court in the case of N.Jayasree Vs Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.3, holds the field and by quoting para 16 of the said judgment, held that the legal representative whether they are married or earning, are entitled for the compensation. It reiterated the views taken in Gujarat SRTC V/s 2 AIR Online 2023 SC 1286 3 (2022) 14 SCC 712 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai4, and Meena Devi V/s Nunu Chand Mahto.5 15. Thereafter, the Apex Court in the case of Seema Rani and Others V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others6, again held that the earning children and married daughters are also entitled for the compensation since they are the legal heirs of deceased. The Apex Court squarely relied on previous judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Birender and Others7. 16. In view of the above Catena of decisions, which hold that the major sons and married daughters are also dependents and therefore, they are entitled for compensation under the M.V.Act, the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard is not sustainable in law. 4 (1987) 3 SCC 234] 5 [(2023) 1 SCC 204] 6 SCC OnLine SC 283 7 2020 11 SCC 356 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 17. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has adopted a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the income of deceased. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in respect of the settlement of the claims arising out of the motor vehicle accidents before the Lok Adalath prescribes the notional income of Rs.10,250/- p.m. for the year 2017. In umpteen number of cases, this Court has held that the said guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. 18. The deceased was aged 55 years at the time of the accident and therefore, the future prospects are to be calculated as held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi,8 and as such the appropriate multiplicand would be Rs.10,250/- + (Rs.10250x 10%) = Rs.11,275/-. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated 8 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 as Rs.11,275 x 3/4th x 12 x 11 = 11,16,225/- by adopting a multiplier of 11. 19. In addition to it, the petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.52,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of loss of a estate by adopting escalation of 10% at every three years as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 20. So far as the medical expenses is concerned, a perusal of the Trial Court records would show that Ex.P13 which is a bill pertaining to Mahaveer Jain Hospital for the treatment during the period from 23.07.2017 to 13.08.2017 when deceased Mallappa died was not considered by the Tribunal obviously due to inadvertence. Hence the petitioners are also entitled for an additional sum of Rs.1,92,560/- towards the Ex.P13, in addition to the medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal. 21. Under these circumstances, the compensation is re-assessed by this Court and the petitioners are entitled - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 for the modified compensation under different heads as below: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.11,16,225/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.52,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.19,500/- 4. Medical expenses Rs.7,59,191/- 5. Funeral expenses Rs.19,500/- Total Less: awarded by Tribunal Enhancement Rs.19,66,416/- Rs.13,49,431/- Rs.6,16,985/- 22. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a compensation of Rs.6,16,985/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1736 MFA No. 201551 of 2021 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: AK