- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104026 OF 2016 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITA W/O. HANAMANT YADAHALLI, AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. KUMAR SANDIP S/O. HANAMANT YADAHALLI, AGED ABOUT: 8 YEARS, 3. KUMARI SANGEETA D/O. HANAMANT YADAHALLI AGED ABOUT: 4 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.2 and 3 MINORS R/BY N/G MOTHER SAVITA HANAMANT YADAHALLI, APPELLANT NO.1. 4. SRI. LAXMAN @ LAXMAPPA S/O. BASAPPA YADAHALLI, AGED ABOUT: 67 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL R/AT SIMIHALLA LAND, BELAGALI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADV. FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA YADAHALLI, AGED ABOUT: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT BELAGALI TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 2. SRI. BASAPPA S/O GIRIYAPPA KALADAGI, AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: HEBBAL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INIDA INSURANCE CO.LTD. 1ST FLOOR, KATAGI BUILDING, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BEING AWARDABLE INFAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION AND FASTONING THE LIABILITY UPON THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.IX, MUDHOL, PASSED IN MVC NO.23 OF 2015 DATED 22.09.2016 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is filed by the claimants, challenging the judgment and award dated 22.09.2016 passed in MVC No.23/2015 by the learned MACT-IX, Mudhol (for short ‘the tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 3. On 17.06.2014, at about 9:00 am, the deceased Hanamant was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. KA -48/T-9608 and trailer bearing registration No.KA-48/T-022. The driver of the tractor and trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the brakes. As a result, Hanumant fell down from the tractor and sustained grievous injuries, and he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. 4. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Hanamant who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation for the death of Hanamant. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 5. The owner of the offending vehicle has filed a statement of objections admitting the ownership of the TT unit and contended that at the time of the accident, the driver of the TT possessed a valid and effective driving license and the policy was valid as of the date - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the TT unit did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and he submits that there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW.1 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW 1. The Owner was examined as RW.2 and marked 5 documents as Ex.R1 to R5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgement dated 22.09.2016 and awarded a compensation of ₹11,46,450/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the petition till its realisation and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company. 10. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and also learned counsel for the insurance company. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the tribunal has committed an error in saddling the liability on the owner, although the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. He submits that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 the deceased was travelling as a labourer and not as a passenger. Further, to prove the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced the charge sheet. He submits that policy is a package policy. It covers the risk of the deceased. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the deceased was travelling as a paid passenger, unauthorizedly in the tractor and trailer. Thus, there is a violation of the policy condition. He submits that the deceased was an agricultural labourer and he was not employed in the tractor and trailer and he was travelling as an unauthorised passenger. There is a violation of the policy condition. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 insurance company. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and quantum. 16. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased Hanumant in an accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer. The petitioners to prove the same, produced a chargesheet at EX.P-8, which is filed against the driver of the Tractor. The Tribunal was justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative. Reg.Liability: 17. The insurance company has taken a specific defence that the deceased was an agricultural labourer and he was not employed in the tractor, and he was travelling - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 as an unauthorised passenger. The petitioners have contended that the deceased was working as a coolie on the tractor. I have perused the insurance policy. The insurance policy is a comprehensive policy and it covers the risk of the labourer. The Tribunal has committed an error in not considering that the insurance policy was a comprehensive policy. Further, the owner and insurance company have not seriously disputed that the deceased was travelling as a labourer in the tractor and trailer and TT unit was insured with the insurance company. The Tribunal should have fastened the liability jointly and severally on the owner and the insurance company. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability only on the owner of the vehicle. 18. In view of the above discussions, I answer the point regarding liability accordingly. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 Regarding quantum of compensation: 19. The deceased was aged about 28 years old as of the date of the accident, and the accident occurred in 2014. The petitioners have not produced any proof of the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income of the deceased, this court has taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority i.e., ₹7,500/-. The multiplier applicable to his age group of the deceased is ‘17’. 20. In addition to it, 40% towards the future prospects has to be added, as per the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, which comes to ₹10,500/- (7500+40%). The deceased was about 28 years old. There are 4 dependants. Therefore, 1/4th of his income must be deducted towards his personal expenses, which comes to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 ₹10,500/4= 2,625/-. Thus, the income of the deceased is taken at ₹7,875/-. The multiplier applicable to the age group is ‘17’. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of ₹16,06,500/- (₹7,875/-x 12 x 17) under the head of ‘loss of dependency’. There are four dependants, and they are entitled to a compensation of ₹1,92,000/- (₹48,000/- x 4) under the head of ‘loss of consortium’, and ₹36,000/- (18,000 + 18,000) under the heads of funeral expenses and the loss of estate respectively. 21. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation, which is as follows: Particulars Compensation amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency (7,875/-x 12x 17) 16,06,500/- Loss of consortium (48,000/- x 4) 1,92,000/- Funeral expenses and loss of Estate 36,000/- Total 18,34,500/- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 11,46,450/- Enhanced compensation 6,88,050/- 22. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of ₹18,34,500/- as against ₹11,46,450/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹6,88,050/-. In view of the same, the point regarding the quantum is answered accordingly. 23. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. iii. The petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹6,88,050/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12998 MFA No. 104026 of 2016 iv. The owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest to the petitioners. v. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vi. The amount in deposit, if any, and the trial Court records, be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29