Iramma D/O. Mahadevappa Karadagi, Vs M/S Ganapati S Revankar

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HANAGAL IN MVC.NO.205/2008 DATED 29-10-2011, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

¶22

The appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 29.10.2011 passed in MVC No.205/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Hanagal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) being aggrieved by meager amount of compensation of Rs.25,100/- on the reason that by forming the opinion that it is a hit and run case as the accident caused by an unidentified vehicle.

¶23

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the status of the parties is referred as before the Tribunal.

¶24

It the case of the claimant that the deceased was

¶25

standing behind the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-25/B-6348 at that time the driver of the lorry driven the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner while taking it reverse side and dashed against the deceased. Due to which,

¶26

the rear wheel of the lorry ran over on the head of the deceased therefore, the deceased died on the spot.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶29

Upon the claim petition filed by the claimants

¶30

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’ for short) the Tribunal has formed opinion that some unidentified vehicle has caused the accident and therefore, it is hit and run case and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.25,100/- only.

¶31

Being aggrieved by this, the claimant has preferred this present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶32

Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the material placed on records.

¶33

In the present case, the deceased died while standing behind the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-25/B-6348. At that time, the driver of the said lorry was reversing the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased and rear wheel of the lorry ran over on the head of the deceased. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries, which was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal, resulting into

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶36

passing of erroneous judgment and award. Therefore, prays

¶37

to allow the appeal and grant adequate compensation.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for

¶39

respondent No.2/Insurance Company has justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that in the FIR and complaint, there is no mentioning of the lorry number; therefore, the deceased died by hitting unidentified vehicle and it is a hit and run case. Accordingly, the Tribunal was correct in awarding the compensation. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶40

Ex.P-1 is the FIR and complaint in which it is

¶41

proved that one Ravindra has informed to the deceased’s father that the deceased met with an accident while the lorry was reversing and thus accident was caused. Quite naturally, the complaint was lodged stating that while the driver of the lorry was in the process of taking reverse the accident was caused and there is no mentioning of lorry number. The accident caused on 20.06.2008 at 1.00 am, and the complaint was lodged immediately on that day at 10.00 am.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶43

Even though the lorry number was not mentioned

¶44

in the FIR and in the charge sheet, upon investigation it is proved that the fault lay with the driver, stating that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-25/B-6348. The investigating officer has recorded statements of eye witnesses, who are witnesses No.10 and 11 in the charge sheet. Therefore, the investigating officer had formed opinion that the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-25/B-6348 has caused the accident. When these are the unequivocal evidence proving the fact that the involvement of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-25/B6348 in the accident, but the Tribunal without considering the same had formed opinion that it is a hit and run case, which is perverse approach as it is not upon proper appreciation of evidence. Further, the post mortem report proved the fact that the deceased died in the accident due to crush of head and head injury. Therefore, all these evidences and on all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that

¶45

the accident was caused while the driver of the said lorry reversing the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, the

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶48

accident was caused therefore, in this regard, the finding given by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and it is held that the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA25/B-6348 has caused the accident.

¶49

The deceased was aged 25 years old at the time of accident. Therefore, the appropriate applicable multiplier is ‘18’. The accident is caused on 26.02.2008 and before the accident, the deceased was working as an agriculturist. Therefore, in absence of proof of income of the deceased, notional income of Rs.4,250/- as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, is to be taken for consideration for the year 2008. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Further, as per principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI¹ , considering the age of the deceased, 40% of his monthly income is to be added towards ‘loss of future

¶50

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶53

prospectus in life’. Hence, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is hereby assessed and quantified as follows:

¶54

Rs.4,250/- + 40% minus 50% x 18 x12 = Rs.6,42,600/-

¶55

Accordingly, compensation of Rs.6,42,600/- is awarded under the head loss of dependency including loss of future prospects in life.

¶56

Further, a compensation of Rs.16,500/-

¶57

(Rs.15,000/- + 10% escalation) is awarded under the head loss of estate.

¶58

The compensation of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% escalation) is awarded under the head transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

¶59

Further, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

¶60

INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS² ,

¶61

has held that each dependent is entitled Rs.40,000/- towards

¶62

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶65

loss of consortium. In the present case, there are two dependents therefore, a compensation of Rs.88,000/(Rs.40,000/- x 2 + 10% escalation) is awarded under the head loss of consortium including loss of love and affection.

¶66

Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant is entitled for total compensation as under:

¶67

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of dependency including loss of future prospects in life	Rs.6,42,600/-
2	Loss of consortium including loss of love and affection.	Rs.88,000/-
3	Loss of estate	Rs.16,500/-
4	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	Rs.16,500/-
	Total	Rs.7,63,600/-

¶68

Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to

¶69

total compensation of Rs.7,63,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till its realization. Respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit

¶70

the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶71

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶76

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.10.2011 in MVC.No.205/2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Hangal, is hereby set aside.

¶77

iii. The appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,63,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶78

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount to the claimant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶79

v. No order as to costs.

¶80

vi. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶81

vii. Draw award accordingly.

¶82

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶83

SRA

¶84

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2401 MFA No. 20229 of 2012

¶87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [IRAMMA D/O. MAHADEVAPPA KARADAGI, VS. M/S GANAPATI S REVANKAR, AND ANOTHER]

¶88

23.06.2025

¶89

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶90

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶91

ORDER ON I.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2025

¶92

Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents have filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 for correction of judgment.

¶93

This Court on 06.02.2025 has disposed off the appeal. At paragraph Nos.3, 7 and 10 of the judgment, the registration number of lorry is wrongly typed as KA-25/B-6348. But the correct registration number of lorry is KA-25/B-6438. Therefore, wherever the registration number of lorry is wrongly mentioned, the same is read as KA-25/B-6438. Accordingly, I.A Nos.1 and 2 are allowed.

¶94

This order shall be read in conjunction with the judgment dated 06.02.2025.

¶95

Furnish fresh free certified copy of judgment to the parties.

¶96

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶97

PMP

¶98

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Iramma D/O. Mahadevappa Karadagi, v. M/S Ganapati S Revankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iramma D/O. Mahadevappa Karadagi, v. M/S Ganapati S Revankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Neeravati Nigama Vs the Special Land

Miss. Mushtakahamad Alias Mushtakasab S/O Mehaboobsab Hosamani Vs Smt. Rama Devi Nakkala W/O Shrinivasa Rao

The Executive Engineer Vs the Spl.Land Acquistion Officer

Sri. Shivanand S/O Shivappa Hadapad Vs Shri. Golalappgouda S/O Shivarayagouda Patil

Nasir S/O Abdulgani Shaikh Vs Aslam Noor Ahammed Gutti

The Divisional Manager, Vs Manjunath S/O. Veerappa Doddamani