- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21262 OF 2012 C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 826 OF 2012 IN MFA No.21262/2012 BETWEEN: 1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM. REPTED. BY ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S JOSHI, ADV) AND: 1. SURESH MALLAPPA BAGEWADI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 383, HEBBAL, TQ: GADHINGLAJ DIST: KOLHAPUR, OWNER OF THE MARUTI SUZUKI CAR. 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. VIRUPAKSHI BENAWADI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAGANUR K.M. TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. MAHANTESH S/O. VIRUPAKSHI BENAWADI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. NAGANUR K.M., TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. DEEPA D/O. VIRUPAKSHI BENAWADI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. NAGANUR K.M., TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.02 15:46:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 5. GNANAPRAKASH S/O. VIRUPAKSHI BENAWADI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NAGANUR K.M., TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH M BAGEWADI, ADV FOR R1 SMT. S.P. PATIL, ADV FOR R2 TO R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16/01/2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2372/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,30,000/- ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL DEPOSIT. IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 826 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O VIRUPAKSHI BENAWADI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAGANUR K.M-591254 TQ: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. MAHANTESH S/O VIRUPAKSHI BENAWADI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. NAGANUR K.M-591254 TQ: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. DEEPA D/O VIRUPAKSHI BENAWADI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAGANUR K.M-591254 TQ: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 4. SHRI. GNANAPRAKASH S/O VIRUPAKSHI BENAWADI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NAGANUR K.M -591254 TQ: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. SURESH MALLAPPA BAGEWADI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 383, HEBBAL-416503, TQ: GADHINGLAJ, DIST: KOLHAPUR (OWNER OF MARUTI SUZUKI CAR). 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590002 (INSURER OF MARUTI SUZUKI CAR NO. MH-09/BB-54 UNDER POLICY NO.472502/31/2010/6941 VALID FROM 26.07.2010 TO 18.02.2011) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA. CROB IN MFA FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16-01-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2372/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THE APPEAL AND THE MFA CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal No.21262/2012 is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 16.01.2012 passed in MVC No.2372/2010 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court IV, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). The petitioners have filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal, Cross Objection No.826/2012, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1 On 02.10.2010, one Sri. Virupakshi Benawadi was proceeding from Naganur K.M to Hukkeri on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-08/H-9257 by slowly riding the same. When he came near the accident spo,t i.e., at Hidkal Dam cross, the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., Maruti Suzuki car bearing registration No.MH-09/BB-54 drove the car in a rash and negligent manner to endanger the human life - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 and the driver lost control over his car, and dashed to the deceased. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. 2.2 It is contended that the deceased was working as an honorary lecturer in Y.V.S. D.Ed. college, Yamakanamardi, and getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, and was getting a pension of Rs.10,000/- per month as a retired teacher and also, used to earn Rs.2 lakh per annum from the agriculture. The petitioners were completely dependent on the deceased. Due to the death of Virupakshi, the petitioners have lost a bread earner of the family. Hence, the petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of Virupakshi in a road traffic accident. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, appeared through counsel. However, respondent No.1 did not file a statement of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 objections. Respondent No.2 file a statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition, and it is contended that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, famed relevant issues. 5. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.4, who is the son of the deceased, was examined as PW.1, also examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 15 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-15. On the other hand, the respondents did not lead any evidence, however, marked one document as Ex.R-1. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,30,000/- to the petitioners vide judgment date 16.01.2012. It is also held that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Maruti Car i.e., Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and directed respondent No.2-insurance company to deposit the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within a period of one month, from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. 7. Respondent No.2-insurance company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has preferred MFA No.21262/2012. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have preferred MFA Cross Objection No.826/2012 seeking an enhancement. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. He also submits that the deceased was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 aged about 60 years, and the multiplier to the age group of 60 is 5. He also submits that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are all majors and are not dependent on the deceased. Hence, he submits that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not entitled to a compensation. Hence, on there grounds, he prays to allow the appeal, and to dismiss the cross-objection. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the cross objectors-petitioners submits that the deceased was getting pension of Rs.13,096/- as per Ex.P-15, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. She submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on there grounds, she prays to allow the cross-objection, by dismissing the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The points, that would arise for consideration are as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 i. Whether the insurance company-respondent No.2 prove that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side? ii. Whether the petitioners prove that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side? iii. What order or award? 13. Points (i) and (ii): Since these points are interlinked, they are taken up together for a common discussion and to avoid the repetition of facts. 14. The petitioners, to substantiate their claim, petitioner No.4 was examined as PW.1 and he reiterated the petition averments in his examination-in-chief, and to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, they have produced the certified copy of the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-6 which discloses that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the accident - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 15. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal: The deceased was a retired head master and was getting a pension of Rs.13,096/- as per the records marked at Ex.P-15, which discloses that the deceased was getting a pension of Rs.13,096/- as of July 2009, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.10,000/- which is on the lower side without considering Ex.P-15. Taking into consideration Ex.P-15, the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.13,096/-. PW.1, during the course of cross-examination admitted that petitioner No.2 is working, and petitioner No.3 got married, and they are not dependent on the deceased. Hence, petitioners 2 to 4 are not entitled to a compensation and only petitioner No.1 is entitled to a compensation. Thus, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.13,096/- per month and out of it, if 1/3rd is deducted, monthly income comes to Rs.8,731/-(Rs.13,096/- x 1/3rd =4,365 (13,096-4,365=8,731). The deceased was aged 61 years as of the date of the accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 7 as - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1. Thus, petitioner No.1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,33,404/- (8,731x12x7) towards loss of dependency. Petitioner No.1 is entitled to a consortium at Rs.48000/- as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others2. In addition, petition No.1 is entitled a sum of Rs.18,000/- each towards a funeral expenses, and loss of estate. Thus, in all, petitioner No.1 is entitled to re-assessed total compensation of Rs.8,17,404/- as against Rs.8,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. In view of the above discussion, counsel for the appellant-insurance company has rightly pointed out that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, and the petitioners have failed to make out a ground for enhancement of compensation. 1 (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 2 2018 ACJ 2782 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 17. In view of the above discussion, I answer Point No.(i) in the affirmative and Point No.(ii) in the negative. 18. Point No.(iii): In view of the answers to the aforesaid points for consideration, I proceed pass the following orders: ORDER i. MFA Cross objection No.826/2012 is hereby dismissed. ii. MFA No.21262/2012 is hereby partly allowed. iii. The judgment and award dated 16.01.2012 passed in MVC No.2372/2010 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court IV, Belgaum, is modified. Petitioner No.1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,17,404/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The respondents before the Tribunal are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to petitioner No.1. iv. The insurance company i.e., Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the re-assessed compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9351 MFA No. 21262 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 826 of 2012 v. The claim of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB