- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201764 OF 2025 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201765 OF 2025 (MV-D) IN MFA No.201764/2025: BETWEEN: THE LEGAL MANAGER, TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD., SHREE KRISHNA COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAPURA. (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DHANASHRI D/O SOPAN BHALERAO, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 2. PRASHANT S/O SOPAN BHALERAO, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK, 3. SUSHANT S/O SOPAN BHALERAO, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. MANGAL W/O TAYAPPA BHALERAO, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/O PARAMESHWAR PIMPARI, TQ. MOHAL, DIST. SOLAPUR – 413213. 5. DEEPALI W/O MALHARI PARADHE, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK R/O BRAHMAPURI, TQ. MANGALWEDA, DIST SOLAPUR - 413305. 6. SONALI W/O SANTHOSH SHENDAGE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK R/O GAWALEWADI, WADGAON KATTI, OSMANABAD, TULAJAPUR-413601. MAHARASHTRA. 7. MONALI W/O VIKAS KHANDIVE, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK, R/O GAWALEWADI, WADGAON KATTI, OSMANABAD, TULAJAPUR-413601. MAHARASHTRA. 8. SAMADAN S/O MALOJI KOKARE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O BRAHMPURI, MANGALAWEDA, DIST. SOLAPUR - 413305. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 04-12-2024 IN MVC NO. 249/2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XII AT VIJAYAPURA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA No.201765/2025: BETWEEN: THE LEGAL MANAGER, TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD., SHREE KRISHNA COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAPURA. (NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRASHANT S/O SOPAN BHALERAO, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK, 2. DHANASHRI D/O SOPAN BHALERAO, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT. 3. SUSHANT S/O SOPAN BHALERAO, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT 4. MANGAL W/O TAYAPPA BHALERAO, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/O PARAMESHWAR PIMPARI, TQ MOHAL, DIST SOLAPUR - 413213. 5. DEEPALI W/O MALHARI PARADHE, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK R/O BRAHMAPURI, TQ. MANGALWEDA, DIST SOLAPUR - 413305. 6. SONALI W/O SANTHOSH SHENDAGE, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK R/O GAWALEWADI, WADGAON KATTI, OSMANABAD, TULAJAPUR – 413601 MAHARASHTRA. 7. MONALI W/O VIKAS KHANDIVE, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O GAWALEWADI, WADGAON KATTI, OSMANABAD, TULAJAPUR – 413601. MAHARASHTRA. 8. SAMADAN S/O MALOJI KOKARE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O BRAHMPURI, MANGALAWEDA, DIST SOLAPUR - 413305. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2024 IN MVC NO. 247/2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT XII AT VIJAYAPURA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 arising out of common Judgment and Award dated 04.12.2024 in MVC Nos.247/2023, 248/2023 and 249/2023 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XII, Vijayapura (for short ‘the Tribunal’) calling in question the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Though these two appeals are separately filed, however as they are arising out of common judgment, after clubbing all the MVC cases, as they are all arising of same accident, we feel it appropriate to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment. 3. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle and the death of Sopan Bhalerao and Jayashree i.e., the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 parents of respondent Nos.1 to 7 in both the appeals and liability to pay compensation are not in dispute; the only dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation by the appellant - Insurance Company. 4. Heard Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and Sri Basaraja R. Math and Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. In view of memo filed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellate - Insurance Company, the notice on respondent No.8 in both the appeals is dispensed with. IN MFA 201764/2025 This appeal is arising out of MVC No.249/2023. 2. The main contention of the counsel Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi appearing for the appellant in this appeal is that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are all major children of deceased - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 and respondent Nos.4 to 7 are all married daughters, as such, they are not entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and erred in deducting towards personal expenses at 1/5th. That apart, the Tribunal has totally awarded Rs.28,50,000/- including the compensation under the conventional heads, which requires re-determination and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal. 3. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Basaraja R. Math with all vehemence submits that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender 1and others as well as in the case of Seema Rani and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company and others2, the married earning major sons and the daughters are also entitled to be the dependents to claim compensation and be calculated while deducting 1 (2020) 11 SCC 356 2 2025 INSC 192 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 towards personal expenses. The Tribunal having considered the above aspect of the matter, rightly deducted 1/5th considering there are seven claimants survived the deceased and in terms of the same, awarded appropriate compensation which does not call for any interference at the hands of this court and accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 4. In reply to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Smt. Preeti Patil placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deep Shikha and another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., in SLP (Civil) No.22265-22266/2018 dated 13.05.2025 would contend that the married daughters are not entitled to be the dependents and cannot be considered while deducting towards personal expenses. In the said case, wife and married daughter were the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking into consideration of the fact that the daughter is married, taken the deduction towards the personal expenses at - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 50% and awarded the compensation, relying on Manjuri Bera and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and another3 held that the married daughters are not entitled to be considered as dependants while deducting for personal expenses. As such, sought to allow the appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal paper, the only question that would arise for our consideration is “Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking into consideration the current claimants as dependants and are entitled to be taken note of while taking into consideration for deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased.” 6. Our answer to the above point for the consideration is in ‘affirmative’ for the following: REASONS Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed her reliance on the Deep Shikha and 3 (2007) 10 SCC 634 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 another (supra) to contend that the married daughters cannot be considered as dependants and they cannot be counted while deducting the personal expense of the deceased, however, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Seema Rani and others (supra) was not cited, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.10 considering the judgment in Birender (supra) has clearly held that “Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation, therefore, in view of the same, the High Court erred in excluding the daughters”. The Hon’ble Apex Court having held so proceeded to count the married daughters also as dependants and counted while deducting personal expense of the deceased and awarded compensation. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birender (supra) as well as Seema Rani and others (supra), the judgment in Deep Shikha and another (supra) is distinguishable for the reason that the judgment in Seema Rani and others (supra) was not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 cited before the Hon’ble Apex Court. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law befitting within the expression of just compensation and we find no infirmities in the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits and the point raised is answered against the appellant and we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal fails and dismissed. ii) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. iii) The Appellate - Insurance Company shall deposit the balance compensation with interest at 6 % in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal before the concerned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) All other directions of the Tribunal are unaltered. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 v) No order as to cost. IN MFA No. 201765/2025. This appeal is arising out of MVC No.247/2023. 2. The main contention of the counsel Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi appearing for the appellant in this appeal is that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are all major children of deceased and respondent Nos.4 to 7 are all married daughters, as such, they are not entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and erred in deducting towards personal expenses at 1/5th. She further contended that the age of the deceased which was taken by the Tribunal, the same required to be modified as the age of the deceased was with 40 to 50 years as per the PM report and committed an error while adding future prospectus and the same should have been 25% instead of 40%. She further submits that, in view of the age of deceased at the time of accident, the multiplier ought to have been taken ‘13’ instead of 14, as taken by - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 the Tribunal. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded exhorbitant compensation, which requires re- determination and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal. 3. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Basaraja R. Math with all vehemence submits that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender 4and others as well as in the case of Seema Rani and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company and others5, the married earning major sons and the daughters are also entitled to be the dependents to claim compensation and be calculated while deducting towards personal expenses. The Tribunal having considered the above aspect of the matter, rightly deducted 1/5th considering there are seven claimants survived the deceased and in terms of the same, awarded appropriate compensation which does not call for any 4 (2020) 11 SCC 356 5 2025 INSC 192 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 interference at the hands of this court and accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 4. In reply to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Smt. Preeti Patil placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deep Shikha and another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., in SLP (Civil) No.22265-22266/2018 dated 13.05.2025 would contend that the married daughters are not entitled to be the dependents and cannot be considered while deducting towards personal expenses. In the said case, wife and married daughter were the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking into consideration of the fact that the daughter is married, taken the deduction towards the personal expenses at 50% and awarded the compensation, relying on Manjuri Bera and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and another6 held that the married daughters are not entitled to be considered as dependants while 6 (2007) 10 SCC 634 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 deducting for personal expenses. As such, sought to allow the appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal paper, the only question that would arise for our consideration is “Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking into consideration the current claimants as dependants and are entitled to be taken note of while taking into consideration for deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased.” 5. Our answer to the above point for the consideration is in ‘partly in affirmative’ for the following: REASONS Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed her reliance on the Deep Shikha and another (supra) to contend that the married daughters cannot be considered as dependants and they cannot be counted while deducting the personal expense of the deceased, however, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 Court in Seema Rani and others (supra) was not cited, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.10 considering the judgment in Birender (supra) has clearly held that “Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation”. Therefore, in view of the same, held that, High Court erred in excluding the daughters”. The Hon’ble Apex Court held so, proceeded to count the married daughters also as dependants and counted while deducting personal expense of the deceased and awarded compensation. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Birender (supra) as well as Seema Rani and others (supra), the judgment in Deep Shikha and another (supra) is distinguishable for the reason that the judgment in Seema Rani and others (supra) was not cited before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However having considered the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has committed an error while adding future prospectus. The same should have been 25% instead of 40%. The - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 Tribunal has committed an error while taking into consideration the age of the deceased. As per the PM report, the age of the deceased was between 46 to 50. Accordingly the multiplier ought to have been taken at ‘13’ instead of 14 as taken by the Tribunal. On this count, the insurer succeeds which cause reassessment of compensation under loss of dependency only. 6. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for reassessed compensation as follows: Loss Dependency [(Rs.14,750+25%)x12x13x1/5] : Rs. 23,01,000/- Loss of Consortium (40,000 x 8) : Rs. 3,36,000/- Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses : Rs. 36,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 26,73,000/- The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.26,73,000/- as against Rs.28,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The Judgment and Award dated 04.12.2024 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T XII, Vijayapura in MVC No.247/2023 is hereby modified. iii) The compensation reduced from Rs.28,50,000/- to 26,73,000/. iv) The reduced compensation stated supra shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. v) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. vi) The balance reduced compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of petition till realization shall be deposited - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4806-DB MFA No. 201764 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201765 of 2025 by the appellant - Insurance Company before the concerned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vii) All other orders regarding disbursement and apportionment are as per the order of the tribunal. viii) No order as to cost. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed off. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22