- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202274 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202256 OF 2023 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.202274/2022: BETWEEN: THE MANAGER LEGAL, THE TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., J.P. AND DEVI JAMBAKESHWAR ARCADE, NO.69, MILLER'S ROAD, BENGALURU-52. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAVANTREWWA W/O BODALAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. BODALAPPA S/O PEERAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O SHRISHAIL BODALAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 4. PRABHAVATI W/O PARASHURAM ALLAPUR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 5. MALLIKARJUN S/O SHRISHAIL BODALAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 6. SAKKUBAI W/O SHRISHAIL BODALAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O JEVOOR, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA, NOW AT DARGA ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. 7. KARAN BHATLA S/O AJAY BHATLA, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SHAKTI NAGAR, GURAGAON, NOW AT B.G.520, SANJAY GANDHI TRANSPORT NAGAR, DELHI-110 042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6; V/O DTD. 29.03.2023, NOTICE TO R7 IS HAND SUMMONS) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.11.2021 IN MVC NO.389/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.VII, VIJAYAPURA. IN MFA NO.202256/2023: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVANTREWWA W/O BODALAPPA PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SRI. BODALAPPA S/O PEERAPPA PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 3. SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O SRISHAIL PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 4. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O PARASHURAM ALLAPUR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 5. SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O SRISHAIL PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 6. SMT. SAKKUBAI W/O SRISHAIL PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEASR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O JEVOOR VILLAGE, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYPUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KARAN BHATTA S/O AJAY BHATLA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SHAKTI NAGAR, GURUGAON, NOW AT B.G 520, SANJAY GANDHI TRANSPORT NAGAR, DELHI-110 042. 2. THE MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., JP AND DEVI JAMBAKESHWAR ARCADE, NO. 69 MILLER’S ROAD, BANGALORE-52. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 15-11-2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-VII, VIJAYPUR IN MVC NO. 389/2015. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No. 389/2015 dated 15.11.2021 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VII, Vijaypura, the petitioners are in appeal in MFA No.202256/2023 and the Insurance Company is in appeal in MFA No. 202274/2022. 2. The factual matrix of the cases are that, on 12.11.2014, the deceased Shrishail, son of Bodalappa Pujari, was returning from his land on a TVs XL motorcycle bearing No.KA.28.EA.5583 and near Halsangi Cross, on NH13, Vijayapura Solapur Road, at about 2.15 p.m., a Truck bearing No.HR.55.K.4173 came in high speed and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler, resulting in the deceased Shrishail suffering grievous injuries and later he succumbed to injuries on 20.11.2014. The petitioners who are parents, wife and children of the deceased Shishail, approached the Tribunal for compensation contending that the deceased was aged 40 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by his agriculture and coolie work and as such, adequate compensation may be awarded to them. 3. On being served with the notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and as such, placed exparte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and resisted the claim petition contending that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, the driver of the Truck was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and that the major sons and daughters of the deceased are not the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 dependents and as such, they are not entitled for compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the first petitioner was examined as PW1 and an eye witness of the accident was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P13 were marked on their behalf. The official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and Exhibits R1 to 5 were marked. 5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver of the Truck was not having a valid driving licence and that petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are not the dependents of the deceased and it determined the compensation at Rs.10,62,022/- under different heads as below: Loss of income due to dependency Rs. 6,00,120/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,91,902/- Towards loss of spousal parental and filial consortium Rs. 2,40,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Towards transportation and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.10,62,022/- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners as well as the Insurance Company are before this Court. 7. The Tribunal records have been secured and the arguments are heard. In MFA No.202256/2023 several efforts to serve the notice on respondent No.1 remained unsuccessful. However, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since respondent No.1 had remained exparte before the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid driving licence. The endorsement of the concerned RTO which is produced at Ex.R3 would show that there were no records in that office concerning the Driving Licence which was mentioned in the chargesheet. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that Ex.R3 would not show that the driver was not having a valid driving licence, but it only shows that no records are available. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the absence of any record - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 pertaining to the driving licence of the driver of the Truck would inevitably result in said driver not possessing the driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the inference drawn by the Tribunal in this regard is erroneous and as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 9. Sofar as the quantum of the compensation amount is concerned, he defends the impugned judgment stating that petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 being major and married were not entitled for compensation as they were not the dependents. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Tomar and Others V/s Ashok Kushwaha and Others1, lays down that the major sons and married daughters also come within the purview of the legal heirs and therefore, they are entitled 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309, 2025 SCC Online SC 554 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 for the compensation. Secondly, he submits that the notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore, the compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ needs to be reconsidered by this Court. He restrict his claim in this appeal only in respect of the quantum of loss of dependency. 11. A perusal of the Tribunal records would show that the Insurance Company had issued notice to the owner of the vehicle as per Ex.R4. The said notice issued to the owner had been returned with a endorsement ‘no such addressee was found’. Therefore, the notice to the owner of the vehicle remained un served by the Insurance Company also. Ex.R3, issued by RTO Nagaland, would show that there are no records either found or available in respect of the Driving Licence No. 40165/TV/T/ 2010 in the name of Shri Khayyam. Except this there is nothing on record to show that the driver had no valid driving licence. 12. The Tribunal observers that Ex.R3 would only show that there is no record in the RTO. That cannot be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 equated to an inference to be drawn to mean that the driver did not possess the driving licence. When the Investigating Officer has filed the chargesheet he had ascertained that there was a driving licence to the driver, it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove that the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer was erroneous. Therefore, when Ex.R3 was issued by the concerned RTO, it falls short of proving that the charge sheet contents are also incorrect. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the inferences drawn by the Tribunal in respect of Ex.R3. The absence of the valid driving licence to the driver of the lorry has not been proved by the Insurance Company. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is bereft of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. So far as the quantum of the compensation amount is concerned, the first contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are also the legal heirs of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 the deceased Shrishail and therefore, they can not be denied of the compensation. 14. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Anand Pal2, lays down that the married siblings of the claimant therein are also entitled for the compensation. Thereafter, in the case of Sadhana Tomar and Others V/s Ashok Kushwaha and Others (supra), the Apex Court has held that the adult members of the family even though they were not dependents, come within the purview of the legal heirs and therefore, they are also entitled for compensation. 15. In Sadhana Tomar’s case (supra), the Apex Court has considered as many as 5 judgments and came to the conclusion that the view of the Apex Court in the case of N.Jayasree Vs Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.3, holds the field and by quoting para 16 of the said judgment, held that the legal 2 AIR Online 2023 SC 1286 3 (2022) 14 SCC 712 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 representative whether they are married or earning, are entitled for the compensation. It reiterated the views taken in Gujarat SRTC V/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai4, and Meena Devi V/s Nunu Chand Mahto.5 16. Thereafter, the Apex Court in the case of Seema Rani and Others V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others6, again held that the earning children and married daughters are also entitled for the compensation since they are the legal heirs of deceased. The Apex Court squarely relied on previous judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Birender and Others7. 17. In view of the above Catena of decisions, which hold that the major sons and married daughters are also dependents and therefore, they are entitled for compensation under the M.V.Act, the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard is not sustainable in law. 4 (1987) 3 SCC 234] 5 [(2023) 1 SCC 204] 6 SCC OnLine SC 283 7 2020 11 SCC 356 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 18. In the result, they being admitted to be the members of the family of the deceased, the personal expenses of the deceased are to be held at 1/4th. 19. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe notional income of Rs.7,500/- per month for the year 2014. Therefore, assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- and adding Rs.3,000/- (40% of the same) towards future prospects, the loss of dependency is calculated as: Rs.10,500/- [(7,500/- + Rs.3,000/- (40% of Rs.7,500/-)] x 12x 15 x3/4=Rs.14,17,500/- instead of Rs.6,00,120/- awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be an enhancement of Rs.8,17,380/-. 20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,91,902/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 he is not pressing any claim for reconsideration or reassessment in respect of the remaining heads. 21. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) MFA No.202274/2022 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (ii) MFA No.202256/2023 filed by the petitioners is hereby allowed in part. (iii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. (iv) The petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs. Rs.8,17,380/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a., (excluding interest for the delayed period of 378 days in filing the appeal) - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1921 MFA No. 202274 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 202256 of 2023 (v) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT: AK