- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101361 OF 2024 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101561 OF 2025 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.101361/2024 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KOLIGUDDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 2. KUMARI SANVITA D/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI, AGE. 06 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. KOLIGUDDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.04 10:47:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL M/G SMT. MAHANADA W/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI) 3. SRI. NAMDEV S/O. BASAPPA KOLI, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. NILL, R/O. KOLIGUDDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 4. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. NAMDEV KOLI AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. NILL, R/O. MEKHALI TQ RAIBAG DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 5. KUMAR MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI AGE. 04 YEARS, OCC. NIL R/O. KOLIGUDDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL M/S SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI) 6. SRI. ANIL S/O. BASAPPA MOKASHI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF THE MAHINDRA BOLERO MAXI TRUCK, R/O. BADABYAKUD VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1114/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAIBAG, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 IN MFA NO.101561/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. KOLIGUDDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 2. KUMARI SANVITA D/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI AGE. 08 YEARS, OCC. NIL, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL M/G. SMT. MAHANANDA SHIVAPPA KOLI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KOLIGUDDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 3. SHRI NAMDEV S/O. BASAPPA KOLI AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O KOLIGUDDA, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 4. SMT. YALAVVA W/O. NAMDEV KOLI AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O.MEKHALI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. 5. KUMAR MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI AGE. 11 MONTHS R/BY HIS NATURAL M/G SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. SHIVAPPA KOLI AGE.34 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK R/O. KOLIGUDDA TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI 591317. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 AND: 1. SHRI ANIL S/O. BASAPPA MOKASHI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF VEHICLE, R/O. BDABYAKUD VILLAGE TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER OF SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR JAINAPUR, RAJASTANT-302022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. R.H. ANGADI, FOR R1) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING THAT, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1114/2020 BY IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT RAIBAG IN AWARDING COMPENSATION RS.72,59,870/- WITH INTEREST OF 6% INTEREST P.A. MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED AND ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION RS.12,74,0130/- WITH INTEREST OF 18% PER ANNUM FOR THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT RESPONDENT NO.1 DULY INSURED WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) MFA No.101361/2024 is by the insurer questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded, whereas MFA No.101561/2025 is by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Shivappa Koli filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of Sri.Shivappa Koli who met with road traffic accident that occurred on 31.08.2020 involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/EC- 9055 and Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No.KA-23/B- 0431. It is stated that the deceased was working as Armed Reserve Police Constable in the Police Department and he was drawing salary of more than Rs.35,000/- per month. It is also stated that the deceased was aged 34 years. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 3. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections separately. Respondent No.1 denied the entire petition averments and contented that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent act of the deceased. Further it is stated that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2- Insurance Company. Hence he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company in its objection denied the claim petition averments and also contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. It is specifically contended in the objection of insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. As there is violation of conditions of the policy, it claimed to exonerate the insurer from its liability. Thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 5. The claimant No.1-wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 apart from marking Ex.P.1 to Ex. P.7. On the other hand, official of respondent No.2- Insurance Company official has been examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.72,59,870/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization on the following heads: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.70,64,870.00 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,50,000.00 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 5. Transportation charges Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs.72,59,870.00 7. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.35,044/- placing reliance on Ex.P.7-salary certificate and added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 8. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.K.Kayakmath for insurer and learned counsel Sri.Ashok Naik, for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the entire appeal papers and also certified copy of Ex.P.7-salary certificate made available by the learned counsel for the insurer Sri.S.K.Kayakmath. 9. The learned counsel Sri.S.K.Kayakmath would submit that the tribunal appreciating the material on record has categorically come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Having given such a finding, he submits that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the insurer to pay compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is his submission that when it is proved that the rider of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, the Tribunal committed an error in saddling - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 the liability on the insurer instead of saddling the liability on the owner of the vehicle. 10. Learned counsel Sri.S.K.Kayakmath would submit that the tribunal failed to deduct a sum of Rs.500/- towards Uniform Allowance and Rs.600/-towards Conveyance Allowance from the total income of the deceased. He submits that those allowances are personal to the deceased and as such those allowances ought to have been deducted. 11. Further, learned counsel Sri.S.K.Kayakmath would submit that the Tribunal also failed to deduct amount towards income tax. Further, learned counsel would also contend that since the wife of the deceased has been provided with compassionate appointment, the claimants would not be entitled for interest on future prospects. Thus, he would pray for revision of the compensation awarded on the head of loss of dependency. 12. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Ashok Naik would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 future prospects at 40% of the assessed income. It is submitted that the deceased was in permanent Government employment and as such in terms of decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1, the claimants would be entitled for adding 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Learned counsel would also submit that the claimants who are wife, children and parents of the deceased would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and they would also be entitled for escalation on the said amount. It is submitted that the consortium granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and he prays for enhancing the same. 13. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers including Ex.P7- Salary Slip, the following points would arise for consideration: 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 (i) Whether the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.35,044/- is proper and correct? (ii) Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 14. Answer to the above points would be in the “negative” and “affirmative” respectively for the following reasons: 15. The accident that took place on 31.08.2020 involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/EC-9055 and Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No.KA-23/B-0431, resulting in death of husband of the 1st claimant i.e. Shivappa Koli is not in dispute. 16. The insurer had specifically contended that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero Maxi Truck had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 i.e. Bolero Maxi Truck had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. 17. As the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, including the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yallavva & Another2, wherein it has held that wherever it is a case of no license, it is for the insurer to pay compensation at the first instance and with liberty to recover the same from the owner, has rightly directed the insurance company to pay compensation at the first instance and with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1. 18. The deceased was working as Armed Reserve Police Constable in the Police Department. Ex.P7 is the salary slip placed on record by the claimants to substantiate the income of the deceased. Placing reliance on Ex.P7, the 2 2020 (2) KCCR 1405 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.35,044/- per month. However, the learned counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal failed to deduct Uniform Allowance of Rs.500/- and Conveyance Allowance of Rs.600/-, which are personal to the deceased. Further, learned counsel also contended that the income tax is not deducted. It is true that the Uniform Allowance and Conveyance Allowance are personal to the deceased. The said allowances ought to have been deducted from the income of the deceased. Therefore, if the amount of Rs.500/- towards Uniform Allowance and Rs.600/- towards Conveyance Allowance is deducted, monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.33,944/- (Rs.35,044 – Rs.1,100). 19. Ex.P7-pay slip would not indicate the deduction of income tax. If the deceased was paying income tax, certainly, it would have been shown in the pay slip, since the authorities are bound to deduct income tax at source. Moreover, the insurer has not cross-examined PW1 with - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 regard to payment of income tax. In the absence of any plea in the objection statement and in the absence of cross- examination in that regard, it would not be appropriate to accept the submission of learned counsel for the insurer. Thus, income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.33,944/- as against Rs.35,044/- per month. 20. The Tribunal added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra, has made it clear that wherever the deceased was in permanent employment and below the age of 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects. In the instant case, the deceased was in permanent government employment and was aged 34 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects instead of 40%. Thus, we hold that the claimants would be entitled for addition of 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects. There is no dispute with - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 regard to age of the deceased i.e. 34 years, multiplier of 16 and deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, we modify the compensation under the head loss of dependency as under: Rs.33,944 + 50% x 12 x 16 x ¾ = Rs.73,31,904/- 21. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding loss of consortium at Rs.30,000/- each to the claimants. It is well settled law that claimants No.1 to 5 would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium including 10% escalation, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others3. In terms of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, besides Rs.16,500/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses including 10% escalation. The contention of the insurer that since wife of the deceased has been provided with compassionate appointment, the claimants 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 would not be entitled for interest on future prospects is unsustainable. The compensation is for the death of bread earner of the family, whereas the compassionate appointment is provided for future of the dependents of the deceased as a welfare measure. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.73,31,904/- 2. Loss of estate & Funeral expenses Rs. 33,000/- 3. Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each) Rs. 2,20,000/- Total Rs.75,84,904/- 22. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.75,84,904/- as against Rs.72,59,870/- awarded by the Tribunal. 23. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Both the appeals are allowed in part. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.75,84,904/- as against Rs.72,59,870/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation amount will bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization. d) The appellant/insurer is directed to pay compensation to the claimants at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero Maxi Truck. e) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. f) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14444-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101561 of 2025 g) Apportionment, deposit & disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal. h) Draw modified award accordingly. i) No order as to costs. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB upto para-12 JTR CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8