- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 103309 OF 2019 (MV-D) C/W. MFA NO. 101519 OF 2019 (MV) IN MFA NO.103309/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NANDA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAMMAR, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WIFE. 2. PRAVEEN S/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAMMAR AGE 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 3. RANJITHA D/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAMMAR AGE 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 4. PRATHAM S/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAMMAR AGE 07 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, R/BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER, M/G I.E., APPELLANT NO.1 5. NILAVVA W/O. NIJAGUNEPPA KAMMAR, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE. 6. NIJAGUNEPPA S/O. PARAPPA KAMMAR, AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, ALL ARE R/O. BELAVANTAR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DHARWAD-581204, NOW THEY ARE RESIDING AT: KUBUR ONI, DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 AND: 1. SHUKATH ALI S/O. RAJESAB BALAGAR, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NUTAN NAGAR, YELLAPUR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581359. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CHOLA M. S. INSURANCE CO. LTD., KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, JUBILEE CIRCLE, P. B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. R. MANE, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.618/2016, ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, DHARWAD, DATED 22.12.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO. 101519/2019 BETWEEN: CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, (CHOLA MS INSURANCE CO. LTD), BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KALABURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, JUBILEE CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD DHARWAD-580001, BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, PIN-580001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NANDA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAMMAR, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BELAVANTAR, TALUK: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581107. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 2. PRAVEEN S/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAMMAR, AGE 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. BELAVANTAR, TALUK: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581107. 3. RANJITHA D/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAMMAR, AGE 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. BELAVANTAR, TALUK: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581107. 4. PRATHAM S/O. MAHADEVAPPA KAMMAR, AGE 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. BELAVANTAR, TALUK: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581107. 5. SMT. NILAVVA W/O. NIJAGUNEPPA KAMMAR, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. BELAVANTAR, TALUK: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581107. 6. NIJAGUNEPPA S/O. PARAPPA KAMMAR, AGE 63 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. BELAVANTAR, TALUK: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN-581107. (SINCE THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN). 7. SHUKATH ALI S/O. RAJESAB BALAGAR, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NUTAN NAGAR, YELLAPUR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581359. (OWNER OF TATA ACE GOODS VEHICLE). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY R1; NOTICE TO R7 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2018 PASSED BY IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, DHARWAD, IN MVC NO.618/2016 AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 22nd December 2018, passed in MVC No.618/2016 by the IV-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. Respondent No.2, the insurer, has filed an appeal in MFA No.101519 of 2019 challenging both its liability to pay the compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, while the claimants have filed an appeal in MFA No.103309 of 2019, praying for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Since both appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, they are taken up together for final disposal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 5. It is the case of claimants that, on 13.03.2016, the deceased - Mahadevappa, husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2 to 4 and son of claimant No.5 and 6 was travelling in a TATA Ace Goods vehicle bearing registration number KA-31/9790 (for short “the offending vehicle) along with goods, namely four quintals of soyabean. The deceased was seated in the cabin. The driver was proceeding from Kalaghatagi towards Mundgod road, and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, despite being aware of several ditches on the road. Consequently, the vehicle bounced, causing the deceased to fall from the vehicle and sustain grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital for treatment and he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. 6. It is further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 32 years, was an agriculturalist, owning nine acres of land and also worked as water pump mechanic and earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.15,000/- per month as a mechanic, and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 thereby supporting his family. On these grounds, the claimants prayed to award compensation in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. 7. Respondent No.2, the insurer, denied the contentions of the claimants. It is their further contention that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger; therefore, his risk is not covered under the policy of insurance and respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving license by the driver of the offending vehicle. With these reasons, respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. The Tribunal framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of both sides. On appreciating the pleading and the evidence on record, held that the death was caused by the involvement of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal assessed the age of claimant as 37 years, his notional income as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 Rs.7,000/- per month, and applied a multiplier of 15, and deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal expenses and totally awarded compensation of Rs.14,48,000/- along with interest. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as the insurer. 10. Learned advocate appearing for the claimants submitted that the deceased was owner of nine acres of agriculture land, and also worked as a mechanic. He contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the income earned from the agricultural land, relying solely on the notional income of Rs.7,000/- per month, which was significantly lower than the actual income. He further contended that the amounts of compensation awarded under other heads are also inadequate. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for an enhancement of the compensation. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 11. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer, vehemently contends that as per the charge sheet and accompanying enclosures, the deceased Mahadevappa was merely a passenger in the good vehicle and, in addition to that he and his wife were travelling in the said goods vehicle, and there were no materials on record to show that they were carrying soyabean bags in the said goods vehicle. The Police have also not seized any such goods from the vehicle at the time of investigation. Therefore, he and his wife were gratuitous passengers travelling in the goods vehicle, and their risk is not covered under the policy of insurance. The owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of policy of insurance, and hence the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for insurer further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a higher side and without any basis, therefore, pray to absolve the liability of the insurance company from payment of compensation, and also recalculate the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 12. Following points arise for the determination of this Court: (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased Mahadevappa was owner of the goods travelling in the said goods vehicle, and hence insurer is liable to pay the compensation? (ii) Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, and interference in the said findings is required? Re. Point No.1 13. The facts and the manner in which the accident had occurred are not in dispute; hence, there is no need to discuss in detail about the commission of the accident. The Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence, perused the charge sheet and its enclosures along with other materials on record, and rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 offending vehicle by its driver. This finding does not warrant any interference. 14. The primary contention of the insurer is that, the deceased Mahadevappa was a gratuitous passenger and not a owner of goods transported in the said vehicle. The Tribunal after assessing the evidence of the claimant as well as RW1, carefully gone through the charge sheet and its enclosures, so also the judgments relied upon by both parties, and came to conclusion that the deceased was indeed travelling as the owner of the goods in the offending vehicle, and was not a gratuitous passenger. The said finding is based on the materials available on record. The further contention of the insurer is that no soyabean bags were seized by the police and the assertion of the claimants is that the deceased was travelling along with the goods is not true. The Tribunal has also considered this point, and verified the further statement given by the complainant, wherein she has stated before the Police that after the accident, she had admitted her husband to the hospital and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 requested her relatives to shift the luggage to their house. This fact was not disputed by RW1 during the cross examination by the claimants. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is proper and justifiable, and no interference by this Court is warranted Thus, the aforesaid reasons, point No.1 raised is answered in the affirmative. Re. Point No.2: 15. The claimants in their evidence contended that the deceased was aged about 32 years. However, after considering the materials available on record including the Adhar card, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 37 years, and there is no explanation regarding discrepancy in the date of birth mentioned in the Adhar Card by the claimants. Hence, the age taken by the Tribunal is proper. According to the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the facts of this case is 15, and there is no dispute in this regard. The main dispute 1 2009 ACJ 1298 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 is in respect to the income taken by the Tribunal. The claimants contend that deceased owned nine acres of land, earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, and that he also worked as a pump set mechanic, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. They argue that these facts were not properly analyzed by the Tribunal. Hence, the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs7,000/- per month is erroneous. 16. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment noted that the deceased held 1 acre, 30 guntas of land, according to the RTC produced by the claimants, which is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that, the land is standing in the names of other members of the family. Under such circumstances, it cannot be considered that the deceased was the Absolute Owner of the said lands and he was getting the income of the said lands. The said land belonging to other members of family, they may continue cultivation and absence of deceased will not affect in any way to the earnings of the family. There are other - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 family members, including the claimants and they could cultivate and supervise the cultivation of the land. Hence whatever the income they used to get will not be affected on the death of Mahadevappa, at the most, they may have to engage a supervisor or a coolie who substitute his services to render in agriculture operations, and the family will not be deployed of entire income earned from the said agriculture lands. 17. As rightly assessed by the Tribunal, there are no materials to show that he was mechanic and operating the pump sets. There are also no substantial evidence to hold that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a mechanic. In view of these reasons, the notional income of claimant has to be assessed. As per the notional income chart prepared by KALSA, the income of a victim of an accident of the year 2016, is Rs.8,750/- per month, the same could be applied to the facts of the present case; on the basis of the above said figures, the amount of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 compensation to be awarded under the head loss of dependency. 18. The Tribunal has properly considered the contention of the parties and awarded compensation under the conventional heads, including loss of estate and funeral expenses. In the cases of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others3, a sum of Rs.40,000/- needs to be awarded to each claimants towards the loss of consortium. 19. For the reasons discussed above, the following amounts of compensation is recalculated: 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.10,000/- + 40% x 12 x 15 x ¾) Rs.18,90,000/- 2. Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 6) Rs.2,40,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.21,60,000/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.14,48,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs.7,12,000/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 20. The claimants are also entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the said amount 21. Learned counsel for insurer vehemently contends that the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum, which he asserts is excessive and prays for a reduction to 6% p.a. The awarding of the interest is at the discretion of the Tribunal, in this case the Tribunal has given justification for enhancement of interest at the rate of 8%. The Tribunal considering the law on this point as laid down by this court, as well as the Apex Court, awarded the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation amount. It does not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore said contention is rejected. 22. For the foregoing discussion, point No.2 raised is answered partly in the affirmative. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 23. For the reasons discussed above, this Court proceed to pass following: ORDER (i) Appeal is MFA 101519/2019, is dismissed, and MFA 103309/2019 is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 22nd December 2018, passed in MVC No.618/2016 by the IV-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad is modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.7,12,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realization. (iv) Respondent No.2, the insurer, shall deposit the said enhanced amount of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of drawing award. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5292 MFA No. 103309 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 101519 of 2019 (v) Apportionment, deposit and release of the compensation amount is as ordered by the Tribunal (vi) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment, along with the TCR to the Tribunal. (vii) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. (viii) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP / CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37