- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH 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.200529 OF 2020 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200225 OF 2020 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.200529/2020: BETWEEN: SRI. NIJALING @ NIJALINGAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA DEVOOR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MALAGHAN ROAD, SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 128. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. INDIRA W/O KALLAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MADABAL, TQ. SINDAGI, NOW R/O. AT C/O. BASAVARAJ MALLI, ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 2. VIJAYALAXMI D/O KALLAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. MADABAL, TQ. SINDAGI, NOW R/O. AT C/O. BASAVARAJ MALLI, ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. 3. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O KALLAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. VISHALAKSHI D/O KALLAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESPONDENT 3 AND 4 ARE R/O ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADV. FOR R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.12.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.69/2014 AND LIABILITY SHIFT TO RESPONDENT NO.5 INSURANCE COMPANY. IN MFA NO.200225/2020: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. INDIRA W/O KALLAPPA BAJANTRI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 2. VIJAYALAXMI D/O KALLAPPA BAJANTRI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O KALLAPPA BAJANTRI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. VISHALAKSHI D/O KALLAPPA BAJANTRI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, APPELLANTS ARE ALL R/O. ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NIJALING @ NIJALINGAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA DEVOOR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MALAGHAN ROAD, SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND FURTHER HOLD THE 2ND RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE TO SATISFY THE AWARD AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 AWARD DATED 24.12.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XII, VIJAYAPURA IN MVC No.69/2014. THESE APPEALS 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These two appeals are by the owner of the vehicle as well as claimants calling in question the judgment and award dated 24.12.2019 in MVC No.69/2014, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT XII at Vijayapura, on the ground of liability as well as quantum of compensation. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle and death of Kallappa son of Laxman Bajantri are not in dispute. The only dispute is with respect of fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle in MFA No.200529/2020 and inadequate compensation and for an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 enhancement by the appellants/claimants in MFA No.200225/2020. 3. Heard Sri Sangagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.2000529/2020 and Sri. S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – owner of the offending vehicle in MFA No.200225/2020 and Sri. J. Augustine for respondent No.5 in MFA No.200529/2020 and Sri S. S. Aspalli, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in MFA No.200225/2020. 4. Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar would vehemently submits that the Tribunal framed Issue No.1, with respect to rash and negligent driving, has clearly stated that, whether the petitioners proved that, on 18.11.2013 at about 05.20 a.m., when the husband of the petitioner No.1 along with his friend by name Nijalingappa (appellant herein) were proceeding towards Vijayapur by travelling in a car bearing No.KA-36/M-6068, being driven by Said Nijalingappa in a very high speed, rash and negligent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 manner, due to his negligence, lost control on his car and dashed the same to one lorry proceeding ahead and caused the accident, resulting in death of Kallapa Bajantri. The Tribunal answered the said issue in affirmative. However, while answering Issue No.2, which is framed on the statement of objection filed by respondent No.2 that, due to violation of policy conditions, in other words, whether the deceased entitled for any compensation, as he being an unauthorized passenger in a private car, entitled for any compensation answered it otherwise. The answer to Issue No.1 runs contrary to the answer to Issue No.2. As such, the reasoning of the Tribunal is incongruent, requires interference at the hands of this court and accordingly, sought to set aside the finding on Issue No.2. As finding in issue No.1 answered in affirmative holding that the deceased was friend of appellant – Nijalingappa and travelling in the car which is permissible as per the Act and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal, set aside the finding and discharge the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 appellant from making out the compensation and shift the liability on the Insurance Company, in view of valid insurance policy to make good the compensation. 5. The learned counsel Sri J. Augustin as well as Sri S. S. Aspalli appearing for respondent - Insurance Company respectively with all vehemence submitted that, in the entire police report, there is no mention regarding the deceased being the friend of owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal has properly answered Issue No.2 and the same does not call for any interference by the hands of this Court and accordingly, sought to dismiss both the appeals. 6. Sri S. S. Mamadapur supporting the submission of learned counsel for the appellant - owner of the vehicle submitted that, once Issue No. 1 answered in affirmative, answer to Issue No.2 runs contrary to the first issue, as such, the same requires to be set aside. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal having considered the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.1,04,500/- and annual income at Rs.12,54,000/-, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 however, at paragraph No.14 in page No.16 has clearly stated that, the income tax payable on the income on slab method. However, while deducting the tax, taken 30% of the total income and deducted Rs.3,21,460/- and added 30% towards the remaining amount i.e. Rs.9,32,540/-. In these circumstances, the tax deduction taken is exorbitant and not in accordance with law. If the tax is calculated on the slab method, i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- and upto 5,00,000/-, the tax payable is 10% and above Rs.5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/-, the tax payable was 20% and above Rs.10,00,000/-, was the tax payable was 30%, during the year 2014. If the same is taken into consideration, the income tax payable on Rs.12,54,000/- would comes to Rs.30,000 at 10% for the amount above Rs.2,00,000/- upto Rs.5,00,000/- and 20% above Rs.5,00,000/- upto Rs.10,00,000/-, it would come to Rs.1,00,000/- and above 10 lakhs to Rs.12,54,00/-, the income tax payable would comes to Rs.76,200/- and in all totally it would come to Rs.2,06,200/- and with professional tax and other cess, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 the amount would not be more than Rs.2,10,000/-. However, the deduction at Rs.3,21,460/- was on the higher side. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused both the appeal papers, as well as Trial Court Record, the point that would arise for our consideration are as follows: i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company and fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the vehicle? ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit within the expression of just compensation? 8. Our answer to the above point of consideration are as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 Point No.1 - in negative. Point No. 2 – partly in affirmative. REASONS 9. As could be seen from the record, the Tribunal has framed following issues particularly Issue Nos.1 and 2, which reads as follows: “1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on 18-11-2013 at about 5-20 a.m., when the husband of petitioner No.1 along with his friend by name Nijalingappa were proceeding towards Vijayapur by traveling in a Car No.KA-36/M-6068, being driven by said Nijalilngappa in a very high speed, gross rash and negligent manner, due to his negligence, lost control on his car, dashed the same to one Lorry proceeding ahead and caused the accident. On account of said accident, the husband of petitioner no.1 sustained sever injuries and died on the spot? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, due to violation of policy conditions, they are not liable to pay the compensation?” 10. While answering the issues, the Tribunal has answered Issue No.1 in affirmative, which clearly shows that the deceased was a friend traveling along with owner of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the answer to Issue No.2 is directly contrary to Issue No. 1, wherein the Tribunal has stated that the claimants have not produced any document to show that the deceased was a friend of owner of the vehicle. The reason being in the police records, there is no mention that the deceased was a friend of the owner of the vehicle. This view of the Tribunal is hyper technical. Having answered Issue No.1 in affirmative, the answer to Issue No.2 in affirmative runs contrary to each other. The Act being a beneficial legislation, once the Tribunal has answered Issue No.1, wherein it is clearly stated that the deceased was traveling - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 with his friend Nijalingappa - the owner of the vehicle, there remains nothing to say contrary to the same. In these circumstances, we find force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - owner in MFA No.200529/2020, though the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company made a feeble attempt to substantiate that in the police report there is nothing to show that the deceased is a friend as stated supra. The contention is very hyper technical and cannot get acceptable as the non-mentioning of the word that the ‘deceased was friend’ and it would not give a right for the Insurance Company to claim exoneration from paying the compensation, when there is a valid insurance policy covering relevant period, with a promise to indemnify the driver. In these circumstances, the finding of Tribunal on Issue No.2 requires to be set aside and accordingly, set-aside, exonerating the appellant - owner from paying the compensation, thereby fastening the entire liability on the Insurance Company to make - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 good the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as by this Court in the event any compensation is enhanced. 11. As could be seen from the record, the deceased was working as a principal in Govt. College, Sindagi. He is a salaried employee under the Government drawing Rs.1,04,500/- as salary. As per Ex.P7, the salary shown as Rs.1,04,500/- as on 24.02.2015, the same would comes to Rs.12,54,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs.3,21,460/- which would comes to 30% of the annual income. The Tribunal has clearly stated in its judgment that, as per the slab above Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, the tax payable was 10% and above Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-, the tax payable was 20% and above 10,00,000 the tax payable was 30% for the assessment year 2014. Taking into consideration the same, we find force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants that the tax may be around Rs.2,08,000/- to Rs.2,10,000/-. Since the matter is in respect of revenue to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 the Government, we have taken the higher amount to the extent of Rs.2,15,000/- instead of Rs.2,10,000/-, as contented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. If the said amount is deducted towards the tax in the annual income Rs.12,54,000/-, the amount after deduction of tax would be Rs.10,39,000/-. As the deceased was a Government servant, aged about 48 years on the date of death, hence, 30% is required to be added to the existing income. Accordingly, the amount comes to Rs.13,50,700/-. In view of the higher income now considered, the amount awarded towards loss of consortium and 10% escalation in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires re- consideration and re-determination. 12. Accordingly, on re-determination, the compensation which would comes to: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 Loss Dependency (13,50,700/- x 13) : Rs. 1,75,59,100/- Loss of Consortium (including spousal consortium and filial and parental consortium) : Rs. 1,60,000/- Loss of Funeral Expenses and Estate : Rs. 30,000/- 20% explanation (completed period of 2 terms 3 years each : Rs. 38,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,77,87,100/- Accordingly the appellant/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,77,87,100/- as against Rs.1,19,14,951/-. The re-determined compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 13. Accordingly both the points of consideration are answered and we proceed to pass the following - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 ORDER i) Appeal in MFA No.200529/2020 is allowed. ii) The finding on Issue No. 2 is set aside. The appellant owner of the vehicle is exonerated from paying compensation. The respondent No.5 - Insurance Company is directed to pay the re-determined compensation of Rs.1,77,87,100/- along with 6% interest. iii) The amount in deposit by the appellant - owner of the vehicle be released in favour of the appellants on proper identification. iv) The appeal in MFA No.200225/2020 is allowed in part. The appellants are entitled for the re- determined compensation of Rs.1,77,87,100/-. The re-determined compensation shall carry interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. v) The respondent No. 5 - Insurance company in the appeal shall deposit entirely re-determined compensation along with accrued interest stated supra, before the concerned Tribunal - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5528-DB MFA No. 200529 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200225 of 2020 within 6 weeks from the date of receipt copy of this order. vi) The apportionment and disbursement 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.: 34 CT: AK