- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101409 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER II FLOOR, YELEMENCHALLI COMPLEX, STATION RAOD, HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI, R/BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. VISHALAKSHI W/O CHANDRASHEKAR YARADAL AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 2. PARVATI D/O CHANDRASHEKAR YARADAL AGE. 18 YEARS, 3. SHRINIVAS S/O CHANDRASHEKAR YARADAL AGE. 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, R/BY HIS MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1, I.E., VISHALAKSHI. ALL ARE R/O. WARD NO. 10, YELBURGA, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL- 583236. 4. 5. VEERANGAGOUDA S/O MAHANTHAGOUDA DODDANAGOUDA, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-26/X-8060, R/O. HIRE-ADAPUR NOW AT WARD 12, ILKAL TQ. HUNGUNDA, DIST. BAGALKOT -587118. SHARANAPPA S/O MALLAPPA BALUTAGI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-26/X-8060, R/O. RAMPUR, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582209. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADV FOR R1 TO R3; R3 IS MINOR, REP BY R1; NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.93/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:08:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT YELBURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.20,94,340/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Yelburga (hereinafter the ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No. 93/2018, vide judgment and award dated 09/06/2023. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of ₹50,00,000/- on the ground that on 23/03/2017, the deceased Chandrasekhar Yeradal, while riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 -37/EA- 3576 from Yelburga to Kukanoor road, met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, on the spot. It is contended that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-26/X- 8060, came from the opposite direction at a high speed and collided with the motorcycle on which the deceased-Chandrashekhar was riding. A criminal case was registered in Crime No. 24/2017 in Yelburga Police Station. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, i.e., the wife, minor children and the mother of the deceased, filed a claim petition, on the ground that they lost their only bread earner of the family, Chandrasekhar, in the road traffic accident. Hence, pray to allow the claim petition. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2- the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, jointly filed a statement of objections, denying the claim petition averments. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 a valid and effective driving license, the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 3 and the insurance policy was also in effect, at the time of the accident. Hence, on these grounds, they pray to dismiss the claim petition against Respondents No.1 and 2. 5. Respondent No.3- the insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. It is admitted that the offending vehicle is insured with their company; however, the owner breached the terms of the insurance policy. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-26/X-8060 did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Thus, there is violation of the conditions. Further it is contended that the accident occurred due to the self negligence of the deceased, as such, Respondent No.3 has no liability to pay the compensation as claimed. Hence, prays to dismiss the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 claim petition against Respondent No.3- the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The claimants, to prove the claim petition averments, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 23 documents as Exs.P1 to P23. In rebuttal, Respondent No.3 examined one of its officials as RW-1, CPI of Yalburga Circle was examined as RW-2 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R6. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of ₹20,94,340/- with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Respondent No.3 - the insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation along with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 interest, to the claimants and ordered to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of the order. 9. Respondent No.3- the insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed this miscellaneous first appeal, challenging the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimants. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal answered the negligence aspect against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal has wrongly added the future prospects at 40% instead of 25% to the compensation amount. He further submits that the mother of the deceased died during the pendency of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 the claim petition, thus, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of income instead of 1/4th, towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is inconsistent with the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal and reduce the compensation amount. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 14. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. Regarding quantum of compensation: 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of Chandrasekhar Yeradal, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. To prove the age of the deceased, the claimants produced the notarized copy of the Aadhar Card of the deceased at Ex.P-17. The perusal of Ex.P-17 discloses that the deceased's birth year was 1982 and the accident occurred in 2017. Thus, as of the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years, not 40 years. The Tribunal, by relying upon Ex.P-9 and ignoring Ex.P-17, has committed an error in holding the age of the deceased as 40 years. Further, it is the contention of the claimants that the deceased had a Hotel business and was earning ₹30,000/- per month. Though the claimants produced - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 Ex.P22, the Registration Certificate for the petty food business, issued in favour of the deceased, as per the Food Safety and Security Act, 2006, however, to substantiate the income derived by the deceased, from the said food business, the claimants have not produced any proof of income of the deceased. In the absence of the proof of income of the deceased, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income at ₹10,250/- per month, as the accident occurred in 2017. 16. Furthermore, the insurance company contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking future prospects at 40%, after recording the age of the deceased as 40 years at the time of accident. However, as per the above discussion, it is clear that the deceased was 35 years old as on the date of accident. Hence, the future prospects of 40% (i.e., for - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 the age group below 40 years) is to be added to the said amount in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, i.e., ₹10,250/- + ₹4,100/- [i.e., 40% of ₹10,250/-] = ₹14,350/-. 17. There are 3 dependents of the deceased as the mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition. Hence, 1/3rd of the said income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e., ₹14,350/- - ₹4,783/- = ₹9,567/-. Thus, the notional income of the deceased is reassessed at ₹9,567/-. 18. The deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident and the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘16’. The claimants are thus entitled to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 the compensation of ₹18,36,864/- [i.e., ₹9,567 x 12 x ‘16’] for the loss of dependency. 19. In addition, the claimants are entitled to the compensation for loss of consortium i.e. ₹48,000/- x 3 = ₹1,44,000/- and a sum of ₹36,000/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate. 20. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹20,16,864/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., ₹20,94,340/-. 21. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, is hereby modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled for the compensation of ₹20,16,864/- with - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10062 MFA No. 101409 of 2024 an interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the realisation of the amount. (iv) Respondent No.3—Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal. (vi) The office is directed to transmit the TCR forthwith. (vii) Accordingly, the pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE KMV CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21