Partly allowed

Smt.Laxmi W/O Sannatamma Katabali v. Sikandar Nazirsab Naikwadi

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025MFA/100079/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident death claim by the wife, children and mother of a deceased passenger. The court enhanced compensation from Rs.9,35,000 to Rs.15,42,500 by raising notional income to Rs.7,500 per month with 40% future prospects, and directed the insurer to pay first with recovery rights against the owner despite breach of policy conditions.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.15,42,500 with 6% interest; insurer directed to pay award at first instance and recover from owner.

Smt.Laxmi W/O Sannatamma Katabali Vs Sikandar Nazirsab Naikwadi — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶6

M.F.A. NO. 100079 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAXMI W/O. SANNATAMMA KATABALI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶9

MISS. DYAMAVVA D/O. SANNATAMMA KATABALI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶10

KUMAR BALAPPA S/O. SANNATAMMA KATABLI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶11

KUMAR DURGAPPA S/O. SANNATAMMA KATABALI, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

THE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 HEREIN ARE STILL MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER-APPELLANT NO.1 LAXMI W/O. SANNATAMMA KATABALI.

¶14

SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. SHATTU KATABALI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL THE APPELLANTS HEREIN ARE RESIDING AT: RAMDURG (UKKAD), POST: VANTAMURI, TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591113.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SR. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

SIKANDAR NAZIRSAB NAIKWADI, AGE: 53 (35) YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GAJABARWADI ROAD, PATIL GALLI, HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591309.

¶22

THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SHIKSHAN VISHWASTA MANDAL BUILDING, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. R. R. MANE, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02-06-2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2618/2015 BY THE LEARNED IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, WHEREIN THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS HEREIN IS PARTLY ALLOWED, HOWEVER, THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE SAID COMPENSATION IS FASTENED UPON THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN OWNER OF THE SAID VEHICLE, BE KINDLY SET ASIDE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND THEREBY HOLDING THE SAID LIABILITY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION UPON THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AND FURTHER MODIFYING AND ENHANCING THE AWARD OF CLAIM COMPENSATION FROM RS.9,35,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. TO RS.18,25,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT, BY HOLDING RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE SAID ENTIRE COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANTS HEREIN, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.11.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CAV JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

¶32

The Claimants in MVC No.2618/2015 have directed this appeal challenging impugned judgment and award dated 02.06.2018 passed therein, praying to enhance the compensation from Rs.9,35,000/- to Rs.18,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till its realization and by holding that respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay entire compensation as determined by the court.

¶33

The trial court record is available before the Court. At the request of both sides the appeal is taken up for final disposal though it was posted for admission.

¶34

The wife, the children and the mother of the deceased namely Sri Sannatamma, have maintained the petition in MVC No.2618/2015 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the TATA 407 vehicle bearing No.KA-23-5931, claiming compensation of Rs.18,25,000/- for his death in a road traffic accident occurred on 08.11.2014. After contest, the said petition came to be

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

allowed in part holding that the Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶39

In the impugned judgment the tribunal has held that Sri Sannatamma succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident occurred on 08.11.2014, involving the vehicle bearing No.KA-23-5931 and that the driver of the said vehicle was responsible for the accident. The tribunal has further held that the insurer i.e., Respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the insured because of breach of terms and conditions of the policy and Respondent No.1 alone, being the owner of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation.

¶40

In this appeal, the Claimants have challenged the correctness of the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal. Sri Sanjay S. Katageri, learned Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the tribunal has not taken into consideration correct income of the deceased and his future prospects for the purpose of determining loss of dependency. He has further

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

submitted that the tribunal has awarded meager compensation under conventional heads.

¶44

Per contra, Sri R.R.Mane, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 supported the findings recorded by the tribunal and submitted that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation by taking into consideration all relevant factors.

¶45

In the claim petition it is contended that the deceased was aged 27 years as on the date of accident and that he was earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/- as a driver. The trial court record reveals that the Claimants have not produced any document before the tribunal either to show that the deceased was working as a driver or earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month at relevant point of time. In view of the same, the tribunal notionally took income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month or Rs.72,000/- per annum. Learned Counsel for the Claimants has drawn the attention of this Court to the chart prepared by HCLSC, Dharwad for the purpose of deciding the cases before Lok-Adalath. In the said chart the notional income of a person during the year 2014-2015 is shown as Rs.7,500/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. If we take into

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

consideration the notional income shown in the said chart, then it is to be held that the notional income of the deceased taken by the tribunal is on lower side. Based on the said chart this Court opines that it would be proper to assume notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month.

¶49

In National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that when the deceased is aged below 40 years and was a self employed or a person on fixed salary, 40% of his income should be added while considering the future prospects. In that event, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.10,500/- [i.e. Rs.7,500/- Plus Rs.3,000/- (40%)] per month.

¶50

The document marked at Ex.P8 i.e., history sheet for drivers, contains date of birth of the deceased as 01.06.1978. That means the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the tribunal has applied correct multiplier of 15 in the case. Further, the tribunal taking into consideration number of the dependants, deducted 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. This Court does not

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

find any error committed by the tribunal in these aspects. Thus, based on reassessment of the income of the deceased as noted above, the Claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.14,17,500/- [Rs.7,875/- (i.e., Rs.10,500/- minus Rs.2,625/(1/4^th portion) X 12 X 15] under the head of loss of dependency in place of Rs.8,10,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶54

The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transport expenses. Learned Counsel for Claimants has contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under these conventional heads is on lower side. If we taken into consideration the date of accident i.e., 08.11.2014, it is to be held that the tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation to the Claimants under these conventional heads. As such this Court holds that the Claimants have not made out valid ground to seek enhancement of the compensation under conventional heads.

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶56

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the

¶59

Claimants are entitled for total compensation of

¶60

Rs.15,42,500/- under the following heads :

¶61

Sl.No	Head	Amount in Rupees
1.	Loss of dependency	14,17,500
2.	Loss of love and affection	50,000
3.	Loss of Consortium	25,000
4.	Loss of Estate	25,000
5.	Funeral and Transportation expenses	25,000
	Total	15,42,500

¶62

Learned Counsel for Claimants has vehemently submitted that the tribunal has grossly erred in absolving the Respondent No.2/Insurer of the offending vehicle from the liability of satisfying the award on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 strenuously submitted that Respondent No.2 has proved breach of the policy conditions on the part of the insured by allowing a person, who did not possess

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

a valid driving license, to drive the offending vehicle and the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition against them.

¶66

In Shamanna and Another Vs Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others , reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in case of third party risks, as per the decision in National Insurance Co. Limited Vs Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover same from the insured.

¶67

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the said proposition of law in Akula Narayana Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2025 INSC 1301) and the directing the insurer to first satisfy the MACT award in favour of third party victims and then recover the amount from the insured/owner if a breach of policy conditions is established such as no valid license/endorsement, overloading, route deviation, minor driving, breach of permit conditions etc.

¶68

In the case on hand, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in tempo and he definitely falls under the category of

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

third party. The insurer has opposed saddling them with liability of paying the compensation to the claimants on the ground that the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding driving license at the time of accident and that the driver of the vehicle was carrying more than 20 passengers in violation of conditions of the policy. In view of the above stated legal position, a direction is required in the present case for the insurer to pay the award amount in the first instance, as it involves third-party risk and thereafter recover the same from the insured.

¶73

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶74

following :

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶77

(ii) The judgment and award dated 02.06.2018 passed in MVC No.2618/2015 by learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi is modified.

¶78

(iii) The claimants are entitled to total compensation of ₹ 15,42,500/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Forty Two

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17348 MFA No. 100079 of 2019

¶80

11 -

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Thousand and Five Hundred) only in place of ₹9,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶83

(iv) Respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the award amount at the first instance and to recover the same from Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶84

(v) The order of the trial Court regarding apportionment of the compensation amongst the Claimants and for investment, shall hold good to entire award amount.

¶85

(vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶86

Sd/(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

¶87

CKK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt.Laxmi W/O Sannatamma Katabali v. Sikandar Nazirsab Naikwadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Laxmi W/O Sannatamma Katabali v. Sikandar Nazirsab Naikwadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramashidhanna S/O Mallikarjun Poleshi Vs Prakash S/O Ramachandra Bennur

Bahubali S/O. Suresh Wadral Vs Shrishailappa Murigeppa Kori

M Swamy S/O Manjappa C Vs Depot Manager

The Divisional Manager Vs Praveen S/O. Bhimappa Gudagi

The Manager Vs Krishna S/O Rama Gouda

Smt Lakshmi Devi K W/O Late K Dharmappa Vs G M Prajwal S/O G M Mallikarjuona Reddy