- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23042 OF 2013 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100036 OF 2018 IN MFA NO.23042 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD., S-5, 6TH FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU, NOW REPTD BY ITS AUTHROISED SIGNATORY E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTAN-302022. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. SHESHARTNAM SATYANARAYAN SANKRANTHI AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD 2. SRI. SATHYANARAYAN S/O. SATHYANARAYAN SANKRANTHI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE BOTH ARE R/O: VADDARAHATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 3. SRI. RAVICHANDRA S/O. RANGAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O : WARD NO.14, INDIRANAGAR GANGAVATHI, TQ : GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 4. SRI. PARASHURAM S/O. RAMAPPA PUJAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O : H. NO.165, WARD NO.6, AMARBHAGATHSINGH NAGAR, KAMPLIROAD, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY AND SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, ADVS FOR R1 & R2 SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV FOR R3 & R4) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.01 11:21:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21-02-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.242/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,54,550/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100036 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SHESHARATNAM D/O SATHYANARAYANA SANKRANTHI, AGED 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: VADDARAHATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI. 2. SATHYANARAYANA S/O SATHYANARAYANA SANKRANTHI, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: VADDARAHATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRIYUTHS. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY AND SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, ADVS) AND: 1. RAVICHANDRA S/O RANGAPPA AGED: 35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-37/4499, R/O: GANGAVATHI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, W.NO.14 INDIRANAGAR. 2. PARASHURAM PUJAR S/O RAMAPPA PUJAR AGED 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-37/4499, R/O: AMARBHAGATHSINGH NAGAR, KAMPLI ROAD, GANGAVATHI. 3. THE MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, S-5, MOHARTH CHEMBER, 6TH FLOOR, SHIVAJI NAGAR, INFRANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADV FOR R1 & R2, SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV FOR R3) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA NO.23042/2013 IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21-02-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.242/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING & ORDERS, 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) These appeal and cross-objection are arising out of the judgment and award dated 21.02.2013 in MVC No.242/2012, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi (‘the Tribunal’ for short). The Insurance Company has filed an appeal in MFA No.23042/2013, challenging the quantum of compensation and the petitioners have filed a cross-objection in MFA CROB No.100036/2018, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeal and cross objection, are as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 2.1. On 12.04.2012, the deceased S.Thirupamma was going to marriage of her relative. While she was crossing the road on Koppal-Gangavathi road, near VRL office, respondent No.1 i.e., the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-37-4499, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, on account of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Petitioner No.1 is the daughter and petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased. They were depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, they filed a claim petition, seeking compensation on account of death of Thirupamma in a road traffic accident. 4. The owner and the driver of the lorry in question filed a statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.3 and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the risk of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondents No.1 and 2. 5. The Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 to P26. The Insurance Company has not led any oral evidence, but marked one document as Ex.R1. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in-part and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,54,550/- to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 petitioners and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount and held that petitioner No.1 is entitled to 80% share and petitioner No.2 is entitled to 20% share in the compensation amount. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed the appeal and the petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed a cross- objection, seeking for enhancement. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. He also submits that, petitioner No.2 is a major son and he was not depending on the income of the deceased Thirupamma, the said aspect was not examined by the Tribunal and committed an error in awarding compensation to petitioner No.2. Hence, on this ground he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 Company and to dismiss the cross-objection filed by the petitioners. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the accident occurred in 2012; the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. She submits that, in the absence of the proof of income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. She also submits that, though petitioner No.2 is aged major, he was depending on the income of his mother (the deceased). Hence, she submits that, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a share in the compensation to petitioner No.2. She submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, hence, she prays to allow the cross-objection filed by the petitioners and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 12. There is no dispute that, the deceased Thirupamma met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. A charge sheet was filed against the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-37-4499, which is marked as Ex.P21. From perusal of Ex.P21, it is clear that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. Insofar as quantum is concerned, though the petitioners have contended that the deceased was doing agriculture, coolie work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, they have not produced any income proof to substantiate their case. In the absence of income proof, the notional income has to be taken as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 The accident is of the year 2012. The deceased Thirupamma was aged about 65 years as on the date of accident. As per the said schedule, the notional income should be taken at Rs.6,500/- and the multiplier applied to the age group of the deceased is ‘7’ as per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another1. There are two dependants. Thus, 1/3rd has to be deducted out of Rs.6,500/- i.e., Rs.6,500/- - 2,166 = Rs.4,334/-. Thus, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,334/- per month. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.3,64,056/- (Rs.4,334/- x 12 x 7) towards loss of dependency. In addition to it, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the heads of loss of consortium at Rs.48,000/- x 2 = Rs.96,000/- and Rs.36,000/- towards the loss of estate and funeral expenses and also Rs.5,150/- towards the medical expenses. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the total 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 compensation of Rs.5,01,206/- as against Rs.2,54,550/-. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,46,656/-. 14. The Insurance Company has taken a contention that petitioner No.2 is a major son and he was not depending on the income of the deceased mother. The petitioners have contended that, petitioner No.2 was depending on the income of the deceased. In rebuttal, the respondent-Insurance Company has not led any rebuttal evidence. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal was justified in granting a share in the compensation to the extent of 20% to petitioner No.2. 15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.23042/2013 is dismissed; ii. MFA CROB No.100036/2018 is allowed-in- part; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10630 MFA No. 23042 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100036 of 2018 iii. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.242/2012 by the Tribunal is hereby modified; iv. The petitioners are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,46,656/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation of the amount; v. The petitioners are not entitled for the interest for a period of 1594 days of delay caused in filing of the MFA Cross objections. vi. The insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vii. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12