- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103199 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, APMC YARD, PCA AND RD BANK BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR GADAG, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DEPUTY MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARNAPPA S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHARADA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WIFE, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101. 2. SRI. SOMSHEKARAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101. 3. SRI. LINGARAJ S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, R Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101. 4. PRANAVKUMAR S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101. 5. SRI. SADASHIV S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101. 6. RAVINDRA S/O. RUDRAPPA NAINEGALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101. (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-26/L-2409) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.368/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GADAG AND ETC., THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 03.01.2018 passed in MVC No.368/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and Additional MACT, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) on the grounds that the claimants are the wife and major children of the deceased. Therefore, half of the income ought to have been deducted, but not 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses. Another ground raised is that claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased is receiving a family pension due to the demise of the deceased under the head ‘loss of dependency’. On these two grounds, the appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 3. The factum of the accident, death of the deceased and also liability of the Insurance Company are not in dispute. The dispute with regard to reduce the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has urged on two folds: a. Claimant Nos.2 to 5 are major sons and therefore cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased therefore, claimant No.1 being wife, alone can be considered as dependent on the deceased thus, half of the income ought to have been deducted by the Tribunal, but not 1/3rd. b. Another limb of argument by the counsel for appellant is that claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased, is receiving family pension due to the demise of the deceased, therefore she is not entitled compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants submitted that claimant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 No.1 being wife of the deceased, indicates that the deceased has the responsibility of maintaining the family. As such, the deceased was married, hence, justified deduction of 1/3rd income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Further, it was submitted that just because the claimant No.1 being wife is receiving family pension that does not amounts to denial of compensation to claimant No.1 on the head loss of dependency. Therefore, justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 6. Upon hearing the rival submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration as follows: i. Whether, in case where the deceased is married and only wife alone is dependent on the deceased, is it permissible to make deduction to the extent half of the income towards personal and living expenses? ii. If not, what would be the appropriate ratio of income to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in case wife alone is dependent on the deceased? iii. Whether the wife, being the widow of the deceased and receiving family pension due to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 demise of husband is entitled to receive the compensation under the head loss of dependency? Point Nos.1 and 2: 7. In the present case, the deceased had retired from his service as a lecturer and was receiving a pension amount of Rs.24,871/- per month. After death of the deceased, claimant No.1 being wife, is receiving family pension of Rs.24,871/-. The deceased had a wife and four children; however, claimant Nos.2 to 5 cannot be categorized as dependent on the deceased, which proves that the deceased had a family consisting a wife and four children. When this being the fact that the deceased had the responsibility of maintaining the family, just because the children are major and cannot be categorized as dependents does not mean that the deceased was tending to make expenditure on more himself as incase of bachelor or unmarried individuals. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2009 SCC 3104 (Sarala Verma Case) has adopted principle that unmarried individuals or bachelors are tending more to make expenditure on themselves compare to a married person having spouse and children. In case a married person, the expenses would be more towards maintaining family rather spending more on himself. This is the principle stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma case (stated supra). Therefore, the tendency to make expenditures towards more himself by the deceased during his lifetime is dependent on the status of him being married or unmarried. 9. Quite naturally, a person after marriage having family, it is natural that he makes more expenditure for maintaining the family than to make expenditure on him more. Therefore, when considering claimant No.1 as the wife, it cannot be expected that the deceased had a tendency to spend more on himself. Additionally, the deceased had four children, which increased his responsibility towards the family. Thus, while the wife alone can be considered as - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 dependent, it is not appropriate to make deduction of half of the income towards personal and living expenses incase of married person. Instead, it would be more appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention taken by the insurance company. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative and point No.2 is answered that 1/3rd of time is to be deducted. Point No.3: 10. So far as the issue, when the wife is receiving family pension whether entitled or not for receiving compensation under the head loss of dependency, is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBASTIANI LAKRA AND OTHERS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2018 SC 5034. 11. In similar circumstances, in the above referred case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principle of law at paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are as follows: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 “12. The law is well-settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependants or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependants are entitled to ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependants as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his lifetime cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependants only after his death. 13. As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy is concerned whatever is added to the estate of the deceased or his dependants is not because of the death of the deceased but because of the contract entered into between the deceased and the insurance company from where he took out the policy. The deceased paid premium on such life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death. These amounts are paid because the deceased has wisely invested his savings. Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures, etc. The tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased. 14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be deducted. 15. As held by the House of Lords in Perry v. Cleaver the insurance amount is the fruit of premium paid in the past, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 pension is the fruit of services already rendered and the wrong doer should not be given benefit of the same by deducting it from the damages assessed. 16. Deduction can be ordered only where the tort-feasor satisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.” 12. Therefore, the family pension is result of the service rendered by the employee to the employer. The employee spends his whole life towards employer therefore, after superannuation of age, the employee will get pension as a matter of right for sustaining in the life after retirement. Therefore, just because the wife is receiving family pension due to the death of the deceased/husband, does not amount to disentitling to make claim under the head loss of dependency. Grant of family pension is not charity, it is a basic necessity of life enabling a person after retirement to lead decent life. Hence point No.3 is answered affirmative. 13. Now, since the deceased died in the accident, the wife is receiving family pension and such receipt of family pension is not a ground to disentitle claimant No.1/wife to make claim under the head loss of dependency. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation under the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:791 MFA No. 103199 of 2018 head loss of dependency by taking the income of Rs.24,871/- as income of the deceased. Hence, there is no merit involved in the case to make interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 14. The amount in deposit made by the insurance company/appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. 15. Pending IAs’ if any, shall stand disposed of in view of disposal of the appeal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24