Shri.Karnuakar S/O Shivaram Shetty Vs Shri.Prabhakar S/O Shivaram Shetty

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶9

M.F.A. NO. 101440 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRI KARNUAKAR S/O. SHIVARAM SHETTY, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PANT BALEKUNDRI, PANT NAGAR, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶12

SHREYA D/O. KARNUAKAR SHETTY, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. PANT BALEKUNDRI, PANT NAGAR, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶14

SHEYAN S/O. KARNUAKAR SHETTY, AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. PANT BALEKUNDRI, PANT NAGAR, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶15

(SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER APPELLANT NO.1)

¶16

SHRI NAGAYYA S/O. GOVIND SHETTY, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. MULIMANE, POST: MULLOLI GRAMA, TQ. KUNDAPUR, DIST. UDUPI,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. PARAVATI W/O. NAGAYYA SHETTY, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. MULIMANE, POST: MULLOLLI GRAMA, TQ. KUNDAPUR, DIST. UDUPI.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NAVEEN R. MELINAMANI AND SRI. KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATES)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SHRI PRABHAKAR S/O. SHIVARAM SHETTY, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PANT BALEKUNDRI, PANT NAGAR, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶24

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM INSURANCE CO. LTD., DB PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, 47 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-6000014.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶27

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2017 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL AND II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C NO.1552/2015 ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION IN PART AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

¶34

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 13.12.2017 passed in MVC No.1552/2015 by the learned MACT and II Additional District Judge, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶35

Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, on 03.06.2014, at around 01.15 p.m., the deceased-Usha along with the appellants were travelling in a Car bearing Reg.No.KA22/P-9444 from Udupi to Belagavi after attending a marriage ceremony at Udupi. When the said vehicle reached near Nirmakki mushroom factory within the limits of Kadur village, Udupi taluk, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-22/P-9444 driving in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and dashed to a tree causing an accident. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased-Usha sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. It is also averred that due to the death of the deceased, the appellants suffered an irreparable loss and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) seeking compensation.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance and submitted their objections. They denied all the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. The appellants examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The respondent no.1 examined himself as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1.

¶39

The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the appellant No.1. However, on the issue of compensation, the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others¹

¶40

and held that the applicants are not dependants. The Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid decision, ordered the respondent No.2 to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶41

Sri Naveen R.Melinamani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding 1 2007 ACJ 1279

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

meager compensation of Rs.50,000/- by holding the husband and children of the deceased are not dependents. It is submitted that the judgment relied by the Tribunal of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjuri (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. PW1 in his evidence has clearly deposed that the claimants were dependents on the income of the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged about 32 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month from the hotel business and due to untimely death, the family suffered emotional as well as financial dependency. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶45

Per contra , Sri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the deceased was a wife of claimant No.1 and she was dependent on the income of the claimant No.1. Hence, the claimants cannot be termed as dependents and the Tribunal rightly come to the said conclusion and awarded Rs.50,000/- as a compensation, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel appellants, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the materials available on record.

¶49

The point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is “ whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference? ”

¶50

The above point is answered in the ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons:

¶51

(a) The husband, children and the parents of deceased Smt.Usha filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is averred that on 03.06.2014, at around 01.15 p.m., the deceased-Usha along with the appellants were traveling in a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-22/P9444 from Udupi to Belagavi after attending a marriage ceremony at Udupi. When the said vehicle reached near Nirmakki mushroom factory within the limits of Kadur village, Udupi taluk, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-22/P-9444 driving in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and dashed to a tree causing an accident. Due to the said accident, the

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

deceased-Usha sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. It is also averred that due to the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants suffered an irreparable loss. It is contended that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 32 years at the time of accident and was running hotel business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the family was dependent on her income.

¶55

(b) The husband of the deceased examined himself as PW1 and at Para 3 of his evidence clearly indicates that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the entire family was dependent on her earning and due to untimely death they have lost the financial dependency. The said witness has been cross examined by the Insurance Company. However, nothing has been elicited. PW2 is the mother of the deceased has also deposed her evidence in support of the claim petition. The contention of the appellant – Insurance Company that the hotel business is being carried out by the claimant No.1 and which he used to continue now also. Hence, there is no loss of financial dependency. The said submission is required to be

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

rejected as the evidence on record clearly indicate that the deceased was independently working and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and she used to contribute to the family. There is no doubt that the claim of Rs.15,000/- is only a self serving statement. Hence, we are of the considered view that the income of the deceased is required to be assessed notionally placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. The accident is of the year 2014 and as per the chart, the notional income of the unskilled labour is Rs.7,500/- per month and we propose to consider the same. There is a pleading and evidence on record to indicate that the deceased Smt.Usha used to earn independently and used to contribute to the family and the claimants 1 to 3 are the dependents. Claimant No.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased. Hence, they cannot be termed as dependents of the deceased Smt.Usha as she was residing in her matrimonial house after the marriage. We also notice that the respondent has not produced any evidence before the tribunal to disbelieve that the deceased was earning income from hotel business and she used to contribute to the family and the claimants

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

are her dependents. In the absence of same, we reject the contention of the Insurance Company with regard to the dependency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti and another v. Oriential Insurance Company Limited² , has laid down the general guidelines to assess the notional income for homemaker. In the case on hand, the evidence on record clearly indicate that the deceased was independently earning and the claimants are her dependents.

¶62

(c) Having assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/per month, the claimants are also entitled to an addition of 40% under the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased. The appropriate multiplier would be 16 and the deduction of personal and living expenses of the deceased could be 1/3^rd . hence, the loss of dependency is assessed as under:

¶63

₹7,500 + 40% (₹3,000) x 12 x 16 – 1/3^rd = ₹13,44,000/-

¶64

2 (2021) 2 SCC 166

¶65

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to modified

¶68

compensation on the following heads:

¶69

Particulars	Amount (in ₹)
Loss of dependency	13,44,000/-
Loss of estate	15,000/-
Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	15,000/-
Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each	2,00,000/-
to claimants No.1 to 5)
Total	15,74,000/-

¶70

11. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total

¶71

compensation of ₹ 15,74,000 /- as against ₹50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶74

ii. The impugned judgment & award passed by Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of ₹ 15,74,000 /- as against ₹50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶75

iii. The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment.

¶76

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11440-DB MFA No. 101440 of 2018

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

iv. Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶79

v. 50% of the award amount shall be released in favour of the claimant No.1, remaining 50% shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of 3 years in the name of appellants No.2 and 3.

¶80