- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103740 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MADIWALE COMPLEX, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. NOW REP BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, MADIWALE COMPLEX, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: 1. SMT.VIDYA W/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.2361, RAMTEERTH NAGAR, BELAGAVI. 2. SMT.POOJA W/O PRAFUL PATIL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.523, "NISARGA", SAHYADRI NAGAR, BELAGAVI. 3. DR.BADRINATH BHIMRAO WADAPPI, SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS., MISS. MADHAVINI BADRINATH WADAPPI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.20, BHARATI MICHIGAN COMPOUND, SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD. 4. MISS. VANDITA BADRINATH WADAPPI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.20, BHARATI MICHIGAN MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 COMPOUND, SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD. 5. SHRI.SOLABAPPA BASAVANTAPPA HIRECHANNAVAR, AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: AT/POST: BUDNUR (SALAHALLI), TALUK: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF MAHINDRA VERITO VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA 24/M 3372). 6. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, (INSURER OF MAHINDRA VERITO VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA 24/M 3372). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2, SRI. N.M. KALLUR, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R6; NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2016 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT., BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.1971/2015, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 27.09.2016 passed in MVC No.1971/2015 by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Additional MACT, Belagavi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 11.05.2015, at about 12.30 PM, the deceased Basanagouda Patil, along with his wife and daughter, was travelling in a Mahindra Verito Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 24/M-3372 towards Yaragatti from Bagalkot. The driver of the car drove the same at a moderate speed on the left side of the road. At that time, a Santro Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 34/M-9048 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the Mahindra car. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation on the account of death of the deceased Basanagouda Patil, in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle (Santro Car) died during the pendency of the claim petition, and his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Insurer of the Santro car bearing Reg.No.KA- 34/M-9048, i.e., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the said Insurance Company, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 the insurance policy is valid as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident; therefore, there is a violation of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. 6. The owner of the Mahindra Car remained unrepresented before the tribunal, despite service of a notice, and was placed ex parte. 7. The insurer of the Mahindra car bearing Reg.No.KA-24/M-3372, i.e., National Insurance Company Limited, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that there is no negligence on the part of the Mahindra car, and the said vehicle was insured as a private car with the Insurance Company. It is contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the National Insurance Company Limited. 8. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 9. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P.12. Conversely, the Assistant Manager of the National Insurance Company Limited was examined as R.W.1, and marked 9 documents as Exs.R1 to R9. 10. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide judgment dated 27.09.2016, and awarded a compensation of Rs.20,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the petition till its realisation, and directed respondent No.2 before the Tribunal-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited to deposit the compensation amount. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 11. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.1971/2015, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 12. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, and the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. The learned counsel for the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited submits that petitioner No.2 is a married daughter, who was not dependent upon the income of the deceased Basanagouda Patil. He submits that petitioner No.1 alone is entitled to the compensation. He submits that the Tribunal, instead of deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased, has deducted 1/3rd, which is contrary to the proposition of law laid by the Division Bench of this court in MFA No.20630/2013 c/w MFA No.21025/2013 disposed of on 12.06.2019. He submits that petitioner No.2 is not entitled - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 to claim any compensation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that petitioner No.2 is a daughter, and she is entitled to the compensation for the death of her father. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in granting compensation to petitioner No.2. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 17. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased, Basanagouda Patil in a road traffic accident. The petitioners have produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P-6, which discloses - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Santro Car. The Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue NO. 1. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 18. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased Basanagouda Patil was an agriculturist and also a PWD contractor, and used to earn Rs.. 20,00,000 p.a. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced Ex.P- 10- the Professional Tax Certificate, Ex.P11-the Commercial Tax Certificate, and Ex.P12- A Notarised copy of the passbook of contractor’s Registration. The Tribunal, considering Exs.P10 to P12, has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.. 25,000/- p.m., which is just and proper. Admittedly, petitioner No.2 is a married daughter who was not dependent on the income of the deceased. Petitioner No.1- the wife alone is entitled to the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 compensation. The Tribunal, instead of deducting 50%, has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was about 56 years old as of the date of the accident. As per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 10% future prospects is to be added to his notional income, i.e., Rs.25,000+ Rs.2,500 = Rs.27,500/-, and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the total income comes to Rs.13,750/-. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘9’. Thus, petitioner No.1 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,85,000/- (Rs.13,750/-x 12 x 9) under the head loss of dependency. Petitioner No.1 is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.48,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, and Rs.36,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and the loss of estate. 19. Thus, petitioner No.1 is entitled to a total compensation, which is as follows: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 Particulars Compensation amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency (Rs.13,750/-x 12x 9) 14,85,000/- Loss of consortium 48,000/- Funeral expenses and loss of Estate 36,000/- Total 15,69,000/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 20,25,000/- Reduced compensation 4,56,000/- 20. Thus, Petitioner No. 1 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 15,69,000/- as against Rs. 20,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal which is reduced by Rs. 4,56,000/- 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award dated 27.09.2016 passed in MVC No.1971/2015 by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12323 MFA No. 103740 of 2016 and Additional MACT, Belagavi, is hereby modified. (iii) Petitioner No.1 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,69,000/- as against Rs.20,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realization of the amount. The compensation is reduced by Rs.4,56,000/- (iv) The claim petition filed by petitioner No.2 is dismissed. (v) The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vi) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4