- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200484 OF 2021 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 200063 OF 2021(MV-D) IN MFA No.200484/2021: BETWEEN: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., KALABURAGI SQUARE. DESHPANDE NAGAR, DESAI CROSS, HUBLI. (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NOORJAHAN W/O. BASHASAB NADAF, AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. H.H. WORK, R/O. BASARKOD, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPUR- 586101. 2. BASHASAB S/O. MOULALI @ MAULASAB NADAF, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BASARKOD, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101. 3. HAJIMASTAN S/O. GUDUSAB MANDEWAL, AGE MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 1448, SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR- 586101. (OWNER OF GOODS VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-28/C-0447) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1; V/O. DATED 17.04.2021, NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WTIH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.08.2019 IN MVC NO.46/2018 PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VIII, MUDDEBIHAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA CROB. No.200063/2021: BETWEEN: SMT. NOORJAHAN W/O. BASHASAB NADAF, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC.H H WORK, R/O. BASARAKOD, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPUR. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 AND: 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, KALABURAGI SQUARE, DESHPANDE NAGAR, DESAI CROSS, HUBLI-580009. 2. HAJIMASTAN S/O. GUDUSAB MANDEWAL AGE MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 1448, SINDAGI, TQ. SINDAGI DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. 3. BASHASAB S/O. MOULALI @ MOULASAB NADAF AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BASARAKOD, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED U/S. 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO 51,68,852/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST, BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VIII, MUDDEBIHAL, DATED 20.08.2019 IN MVC NO.46/2018. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These appeals being MFA No.200484/2021 and MFA Crob No.200063/2021 are by the Appellant - Insurance Company as well as claimants/cross objectors, calling in question the judgment and award dated 20.08.2019 in MVC No.46/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT – VIII at Muddebihal, on the ground of contributory negligence as well as quantum by the appellant - Insurance Company and on the ground of inadequate compensation by the cross objectors. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle and death of Fayaz son of Bashasab Nadaf are not in dispute. The only dispute as per the Insurance Company is on the ground of liability that the Tribunal has failed to fasten contributory negligence on the deceased, so also the quantum on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. So far as the cross objectors is concerned, it is on the ground of inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 3. Heard Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company in MFA No.200484/2021 and Sri Harshvardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors in MFA Crob No.200063/2021. 4. Smt. Preeti Patil Melakundi, in MFA No.200484/2021 with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal has erred in overlooking the evidence on record i.e., spot Panchanama, which clearly reveals that the road on which the accident had occurred was under road work and the deceased – Fayaz, who was driving the car has contributed to the alleged accident. This aspect of the matter has been missed by the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1. The Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased has contributed towards the accident and ought to have saddled contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the deceased. 5. So far as compensation is considered, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,72,320/- under the loss of dependency. The Tribunal has erred in not deducting income tax on the award amount towards loss of future prospectus as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 the annual income shown at Rs.2,74,900/- as per Ex.P8 - the income tax return for the year 2017-18. In these circumstances, the compensations awarded requires to be reduced and sought to allow the appeal on both the grounds by dismissing the cross objection. 6. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurer, Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the cross objector with all vehemence submitted that, the police registered a case against the driver of the goods vehicle and subsequently laid charge sheet against the driver under the provisions of IPC well as MV Act. Neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle called in question the charge sheet filed by the police. In these circumstances, the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1, on rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods vehicle, answered the same in affirmative holding that, it is the driver of the goods vehicle, is rash and negligent while driving the vehicle and the cause for the accident resulting in severe injuries, ultimately claiming life of Fayaz and accordingly, sought to reject the ground presented by the appellant – Insurance Company. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 7. So far as quantum is concerned, the learned counsel with all vehemence submits that, the deceased was doing painting contractor under the name ‘M/s. Perfect Painting and Contractors’. As per the bank statement, he was paid all the amounts through bank after deducting TDS. Though, he has paid the IT returns and showing the income tax paid, subsequently he has been repaid the amount which was already been collected under the TDS. In these circumstances, the income taken by the Tribunal, after deducting Rs.15,860/-, amounts to double taxation. As per the learned counsel appearing for the cross objector, the aggregate income after deducting all the permissible tax would comes to Rs.2,93,731/, considering the average of 3 years income tax returns which has been placed before the Tribunal. Since he was self employed and completed 30 years, 40% is required to be added to the said sum of Rs.2,93,731/- and after deducting 50% considering as the deceased was a bachelor, the same will required to be multiplied by applying appropriate multiplier ’17’. In these circumstances, the loss of dependency will be more than the one awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the loss of Filial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 Consortium and 10% escalation towards the compensation under conventional heads in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI1. Accordingly, sought to allow the cross objection dismissing appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused both appeal as well as cross objection papers, the income tax returns placed on record as exhibits by the learned counsel appearing for the cross objector, so also the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows: i) Whether the appellant - Insurance Company has made out any case to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1, thereby fastening contributory negligence on the driver of the car i.e., the deceased? 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit within the expression ‘just compensation’? 9. Our answer to the above points for consideration are as under: Point No.1 – in negative, Point No.2 - Partly in affirmative, for the following: REASONS Point No.1: 10. A perusal of the reasons of the Tribunal on issue No.1 clearly shows that, the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the goods vehicle invoking the provision of IPC and MV Act as well. The others injured in the accident who have also filed claim petition in MVC Nos.47/2018, 48/2018, 49/2018 and 50/2018, compromised the case with respondent – Insurance Company. In view of the compromise in connected matters, respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has admitted the involvement of the goods vehicle and rash and negligent - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, on the basis of those record, the Tribunal has fastened the entire liability, for rash and negligent driving, on the driver of the offending goods vehicle. On a query of this Court, regarding the compromise of the cases as forthcoming in Paragraph No.12 of the judgment, the appellant failed to make any differentiation between the case on hand as well as the other claim petitions. The learned counsel for the insurer with a feeble voice tried to submit that the other claimants are the passengers in the car wherein the driver is rash and negligent in driving. However, once in the compromise there is admission of negligence, on the part of the driver and goods vehicle the same continues in the case on hand also. The mere fact that the deceased is the driver have no any effect on the case. In these circumstances, the ground raised by the appellant – Insurance company fails and accordingly, rejected. 11. So far as compensation is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, there is a double payment of compensation, one under the head - loss of dependency and another under the head - Future - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 Prospectus at the rate of Rs.20,72,320/- and Rs.8,28,828/- and no proper deduction towards tax by the Tribunal. 12. As per the learned counsel appearing for the cross objector, after taking the aggregate income of the three assessment years income tax returns, the same come to Rs.2,93,731/- and after giving all benefits of standard deductions, there is no question of tax payable on the said income. The deceased was 30 years at the time of accident and according to law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, 40% is required to be added towards the annual income and the appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’. 13. In these circumstances, considering the above said aspects, the loss of dependency by applying appropriate multiplier at ‘17’ and adding 40% towards the annual income would comes to Rs.34,95,398.9, which is rounded off to Rs.34,96,000/-. 14. So far as the conventional heads is concerned, both the parents are entitled for loss of parental consortium which comes to Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2). Loss of estate and funeral expenses would comes to Rs.30,000/- at the rate of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 Rs.15,000/-. In terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), 10% escalation for each completed three years from 2017 required to be considered. In the case on hand, there would be two terms of three completed years, as such 20% of escalation would come to Rs.22,000/- (Rs.80,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 = 1,11,000 x 20%). In view the same, both the points raised are answered against the appellant - Insurance Company and in favour of claimant/cross objectors. 15. On re-determination, the claimants/cross objectors are entitle for a re-determined compensation as follows: Loss Dependency : Rs. 34,96,000/- Loss of parental consortium : Rs. 80,000/- Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses : Rs. 30,000/- 10% escalation for two completed years (i.e., 20% on conventional heads) : Rs. 22,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 36,28,000/- The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.36,28,000/- as against Rs.29,31,148/-, which - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 16. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No.200484/2021 is dismissed. ii) The cross objection in MFA No.200063/2021 is allowed in part, modifying the judgment award by the Tribunal. iii) The amount in deposit, in MFA.No.200484/2021 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, for disbursement. iv) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.29,31,048/- is re- determined to Rs.36,28,000/-. The re- determined compensation shall carry - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5288-DB MFA No. 200484 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200063 of 2021 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. v) The appellant - Insurance Company in MFA No.200484/2021 shall deposit the balance re-determined compensation along with the interest stated supra, before the concerned Tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vi) The disbursement as well as the apportionment is as per the order of the Tribunal. vii) No order as to cost. sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:JLR