- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.202685/2019(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. PARVATI BAI W/O LATE MADIVALAPPA SHERIKAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. RENUKA W/O LATE RAVI SHERIKAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 3. ABHISHEKH S/O LATE RAVI SHERIKAR, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. AMBIKA D/O LATE RAVI SHERIKAR, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT MINOR, (NOTE A3 & A4 ARE REP. BY A2 AS U/M/G), ALL R/O BASAVANAGAR, HUMNABAD, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A SHUKUR S/O A. MAJID, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 R/O H.NO.2-89, DUBULGUNDI, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHOP NO.1 AND 2, ASIAN PLAZA BESIDE SYNDICATE BANK, BR. HUMNABAD, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330. 3. SHANKREMMA W/O LATE CHANNABASSAPPA, AGE: 94 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O BASAVANAGAR, HUMNABAD, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADV., FOR R2; R1 & R3 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.03.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HUMNABAD IN MVC NO.501/2017. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) 1. Though this matter is slated for orders, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 2. This appeal is by the petitioners against the judgment and award dated 27.03.2019 passed in MVC No.501/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T, Humnabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking indulgence, since the Tribunal failed to assess the compensation in respect of loss of dependency. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as below: a) On 15.06.2017 the deceased Madivalappa got down from the bus in Dhummansur Village and was proceeding towards his land by walk on NH-50. The offending motorcycle bearing No.KA-39/J-3835 came in high speed and negligent manner from Humnabad side and dashed against deceased and resulting in his fall and succumbing to the injuries at the spot. The petitioners, who are the widow, widowed daughter-in-law and the grand children of the deceased, approached the Tribunal contending that the deceased was pensioner and doing agriculture work, aged about 64 years and they have lost their only bread earner, therefore they are entitled for compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 b) Petition was opposed by respondent No.2, who contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the rider of the motorcycle. They also inter alia denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. c) On the basis of the contentions, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues as below: “1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Madivalappa died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 15-6-2017 at about 1.30 hours on NH No.50 road near Dhummansur, due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA- 39/J-3835 as alleged? 2. Whether the petitioner further proves that she is entitled for compensation? If so what is the quantum and from whom? 3. What order of award?” d) The petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, one witness was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P19 were - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 marked in their evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. e) After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency, since the deceased was a pensioner. It was held by the Tribunal that the petitioner No.1 is also receiving family pension and therefore, there is no loss of dependency and as such, it awarded compensation under the head loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium and awarded total sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and perused the material available on record. 6. The short point that arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the family pension received by petitioner - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 No.1 would come in the purview as ‘pecuniary damages’ and as such, whether the Tribunal is justified in not awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’?. 7. The Tribunal while holding that the petitioners are not entitled for the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’, has relied on the judgment in the case of Manasvi Jain –vs- Delhi Transport Corporation in Civil Appeal No.7642/2009. On careful perusal of the said judgment, it is evident that there is nothing in the said judgment, which would say that family pension would have to be excluded from the pecuniary damages. It is worth to note that in the relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Manasvi Jain reproduced in the impugned the judgment at Para-24, in fact calculated the compensation by applying the multiplier of ‘8’ to the multiplicand of Rs.25,000/-, whereas, in Para-25 the Tribunal observed that the petitioners are getting the pension/salary and therefore, they cannot be termed as dependents. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others v. Maharashtra - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.,1 clarifies the categories of income that would come under the definition of ‘pecuniary advantages’ for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act. In Para 35, the Apex Court holds that an employee contributing to Provident Fund or his heirs are entitled to the amount of the fund irrespective of the accidental death. Para No.35 is reproduced as under: “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, 1 1999(1) SCC 90 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is evident that the above judgment of the Apex Court was considered in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Versus Kishore Dan and others2. Similarly, the above judgment of the Apex Court was considered in the case Smt. Mandala Laxmi And 3 Others vs. A. Narahari Yadav And Another. In the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Versus kishore Dan and others, a collateral bench of this Court had held in Para No.19 that the Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage”. Similarly, the family pension or appointment on compassionate grounds would not be deductible from such compensation, which is to be awarded. At Para Nos.19 and 20, the Court has elaborately discussed 2 2013 Kant M.A.C. 490(SC) - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 with the said aspect with reference to the law laid down in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.3 Even thereafter, several of the judgments of this Court have dealt with the matter. In the case of Mrs. Rajeshwari G Bhuyar and Others vs. Sindhu Travels and Another4 again this Court has held that any amount received by the claimants towards the Provident Fund, Pension and Life Insurance on account of the victim’s death was not liable for deduction. The reason for which these amounts are not deductible has been discussed by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Helen C. Rebello’ referred supra. 10. Per contra, learned counsel the for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company places reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Smt. Mandala Laxmi And 3 Others vs. A. Narahari Yadav And Another. It is pertinent to note that it was a case, wherein, pension as well as the agricultural income was contended and the pension was to the tune of Rs.13,659/- 3 (1999)1 SCC 90 4 ILR 2016 KAR 549 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 and rest of the amount to top up the income of Rs.15,000/- was from the agricultural income as claimed by the petitioners therein. It is worth to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana has held that on account of the family pension there will not be any monetary loss of pension. Obviously, this judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court is a contra to the law laid down by the Apex Court. The points of law considered by this Court have a precedence over the judgment of the other High Courts and therefore, this Court is not persuaded by the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the petitioners are receiving the family pension, they are not entitled for the loss of dependency cannot be accepted. 11. A perusal of the Tribunal records would show that for May-2017 the deceased Madivalappa had received the pension of Rs.47,380/- including arrears of Rs.11,992/-. In fact pension was Rs.35,388/- as may be found from Ex.P17. It may be seen from Ex.P19 that the family pension of petitioner No.1 for December-2018 was Rs.36,678/-. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 Pointing out this aspect, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the family pension is more than the actual pension received by the deceased. This Court has no hesitation to hold that such argument is absurd argument, for, due to the increase in the Dearness Allowance there is bound to be upward revision of the family pension and the re-fixation in case of any Pay Commission Reports being accepted by the Governments or the institutions. Therefore, the question as to what is the family pension that is received by the petitioners cannot be a ground to contend that there is no pecuniary loss. Under these circumstances, the sum of Rs.35,388/- has to be held the pension which was received by the deceased Madivalappa. Hence, annual income that was received by the deceased is Rs.4,24,658/- per annum. After deducting the applicable income tax as per the slab, which existed at that time, the effective annual income of the deceased was Rs.4,18,456/-. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.4,18,456 x 3/4 x 7 = Rs.21,96,894/- by adopting a multiplier of 7 and deduction of personal expenses of the deceased at 1/4th. No other grounds are - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1344 MFA No. 202685 of 2019 urged in the appeal. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.21,96,894/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: AK