- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6663 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAVISHANKARA S/O. DHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O.MUDUGANURU VILLAGE, MALLIPATTANA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK-573102, HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.S BHAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NANDISH M.V., S/O. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. MUDUDGANURU VILLAGE, MALLIPATTANA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TQ., HASSAN DISTRICT -573 102. (OWNER OF MOTOR BIKE NO.KA-13-U-5248) 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, VENKATESHWARA BUILDING, B.M ROAD, HASSAN -573 201. (POLICY NO.71401/31/10/01/00007553 VALID FROM 2-2-2011 TO 1-2-2012) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-SERVED) Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.502/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arkalgud, in MVC.No.502/2012 for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2012 around 1.30 p.m. the deceased Siddamma @ Premamma, met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-13-U-5248 by its rider. As a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment. 3. It is further the case of the claimant that the deceased was about 45 years. She was working and was earning Rs.2,250/- as salary and she was contributing her - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 income towards the maintenance of the family. She was also doing coolie and agriculture and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. With these reasons, it is prayed to award the compensation. 4. The respondent - insurer denied the contentions of the claimant denying its liability to pay the compensation and further stated that policy of insurance is restricted to its terms and conditions of policy. The rider of the motor cycle had no valid driving license at the time of the accident. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. The respondents have not led evidence. After hearing both the parties and appreciating materials available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence of rider of the motor cycle. The Tribunal assessed the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 income of the claimant as Rs.2,250/- deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, accepting the age of the deceased as 45 years, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,57,000/-. 7. The Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head loss of dependency, keeping in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Shivamma and others1. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant filed this claim petition for enhancement of the compensation. 8. Heard the arguments of both the side. 9. The accident in question, is not in dispute. The Tribunal assessed that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. This is not challenged by the respondents. Therefore, only question that arises for consideration is : 1 ILR 2008 KAR 1561 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 i. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement? 10. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant was an Assistant in Anganawadi, in addition to that, she was also doing agriculture work. Whenever she found time she use to engage in agriculture as Anganawadi work was a part time work. The Tribunal has not taken this fact into consideration. Said submission is tenable. Honorarium certificate given by the concerned officer is at Ex.P9. The claimant has produced RTC's of the property at Ex.P10 to show that she was owner of the land to an extent of one acre situated in Bisalahalli village, Arakalagudu taluk. Based on the said facts, taking income as Rs.2,250/- is very meager. Following the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. 11. The deceased was married and claimant is the son of the deceased and therefore 1/3rd has to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 deducted towards personal expenses. The deceased was aged about 45 years and therefore appropriate multiplier application is '14'. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS2 25% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. On the basis of the same, the amount of compensation is to be awarded under the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shivamma and others (referred supra), has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of dependency. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Birender and others3 held that even married daughters, major sons who has got independent source of income can also claim compensation under the head loss of dependency. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Reliance 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 3 AIR 2020 SCC 434 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 General Insurance company Limited, Hubli Vs. Gangappa and others4, relying on the various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, held that even dependants, who are majors and having their own source of income are also entitled to claim compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal that since the claimants are major and hence not liable for compensation under the head loss of dependency is not tenable. 13. As per the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra), the claimant is also entitled for compensation under the conventional heads. 14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency (Rs.7,000+25%x12x14x2/3) 9,80,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 4 ILR 2023 KAR 311 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 Loss of consortium 40,000 Total 10,50,000 Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement 2,57,000 _______ 7,93,000 The claimants are entitled to enhancement of Rs.7,93,000/-. He is also entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition on the enhanced amount. Undisputedly respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is insurer. Both are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. 15. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arkalgud in MVC No.502/2012 is modified. Claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.7,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21164 MFA No. 6663 of 2014 iii. The respondents -insurer and owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the total compensation. iv. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v. Deposit and release of the amount is as ordered by the Tribunal. Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27