Dismissed

Sri. Kumarswamy v. Sri. Dileep v

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026MFA/1915/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation for death of a 72-year-old woman in a road accident. The High Court recomputed loss of dependency at Rs.4,65,000 using notional income of Rs.15,500 with multiplier of 5 and 50% deduction, plus consortium and conventional heads, reducing total to Rs.6,30,000, and held insurer not liable since no third-party policy existed; owner directed to pa

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs.7,02,840/- to Rs.6,30,000/- with 6% interest payable by respondent-owner within one month.

Sri. Kumarswamy Vs Sri. Dileep v — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1915 OF 2024 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KUMARSWAMY S/O SHALLAAPPA GOWNDER, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. PALANIYAMMA W/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT : BHAGAVATHIAMMA TEMPLE STREET, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 598.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. VIJAYA W/O SUBBIRAMANI, D/O CHELLAPPA @ SHALLAAPPAGOWNDER MAJOR,

¶14

R/AT NO. 88, VADAKKUMALAYAM, MELAPALAYAM, KARURU, TAMIL NADU - 639 114.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. DILEEP V

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MAJOR, R/AT KUPPIYODE HOUSE, PARA P.O, ELEPULLY, PALAKKAD - 675 622. (R.C OWNER OF THE LORRY ASHOK LEYLAND BEARING REG NO. KL-09-AN-5699)

¶22

2. THE MANAGER

¶23

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1001/56, JAYALAKSHMI MANSION, 2ND FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. (POLICY NO. 442000/31/2022/21252 POLICY PERIOD FROM 15/10/2020 TO 14/10/2021)

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.06.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4398/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BEGNALURU, (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard the arguments of both sides i.e., the petitioners

¶33

/claimants and the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶34

This appeal is filed by the petitioners against the judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC No.4398/2022 dated 06.01.2024.

¶35

Brief facts of the case are :

¶36

Palayamma met with an accident on 06.05.2022 and died subsequently. Her children filed claim petition, claiming compensation of ₹15,00,000/-. Tribunal considered the entire evidence and granted ₹7,02,840/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation.

¶37

Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred appeal and mainly contended that, the Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from payment of compensation on the ground that there is no existence of policy as on the date of accident and that Palayamma was

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

a third party and risk is not covered by the Insurance Company. However, as the Insurance Policy number 442000/31/2022/21252 was in force from 28.12.2021 till midnight of 27.12.2022 and as the alleged accident occurred on 06.05.2022, insurance policy was in existence

¶41

as on the date of accident and as such, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Further, it is further stated that as Palayamma met with an accident in the year 2022, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka

¶42

State Legal Services Authority, notional income is to be taken as ₹15,500/- per month and that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income at ₹13,821/- which is on the lower side. Further, amounts granted under the other heads also are not proper. 10% hike under conventional heads as per Apex Court decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others

¶43

reported in AIR 23017 SC 5157 is not granted. Further, interest is to be granted at the rate of 12% per annum.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned counsel for respondent no.2-Insurance Company stated that, Palayamma was aged 72 years at the time of the accident and the claimants are aged about 47, 52 and 50 respectively and 2^nd and 3^rd claimants are married daughters of Palayamma and therefore, they are not dependent on her and therefore, not entitled for compensation under the head "loss of dependency" and in support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of A.Manavalagan

¶47

vs. A.Krishnamurthy And Ors. reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268 wherein in paragraph No.7 it is held as follows :

¶48

"the respondents contended that awarding compensation under the head of loss of dependency would arise only where the claimants were a dependent on the income of the deceased and where there is no dependency, award of compensation under the head of loss dependency would not arise. It is submitted that when there is no contribution towards the maintenance of the 'dependant/s', the procedure of deducting one-third or some other percentage of income towards personal and living expenses and determining the annual dependency

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(multiplicand) and then applying a multiplier with reference to the age of deceased (or age of the claimant as the case may be) will not arise. It is contended that as the appellant was not a dependant of the deceased, what could be awarded is only a conventional sum as loss of estate and the expenses incurred for transportation, treatment and funeral of the deceased."

¶52

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied on another reported judgment of this Court in MFA No.6752/2019 dated 7.9.2023 wherein income is taken at Rs.9,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of "7" and added 15% of income towards savings and granted compensation towards "loss of estate" to the dependents and further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitender Kumar & Anr. vs. Sanjay Prasad &

¶53

Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7199 of 2025 dated 22.05.2025) wherein it held as follows :

¶54

"While the claimant-appellant(s) were not dependent upon the deceased, they are entitled to receive compensation as his legal representatives, in accordance with law. Thus

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the deduction towards the loss of personal and living expenses is to be taken as 50% of the income of the deceased in accordance with law."

¶58

Considered the contentions of both the counsel and perused the material on record.

¶59

The deceased was aged 72 years at the time of accident and therefore, the multiplier of "5" is to be taken. Accident is of the year 2022, notional income of Rs.15,500/- is to be taken as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority whereas the Tribunal has taken the income based on the minimum wages, which is incorrect. Claimants are not entitled for future prospects. However, as the deceased was aged above 60 years, as per the judgment referred supra, 50% is deducted towards her personal expenses. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to ₹4,65,000/- (15,500x12x5 minus 50%). Each of petitioners/claimants are entitled for an amount of ₹44,000/- towards parental consortium and they are also entitled for ₹33,000/- towards conventional

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

head. The total compensation comes to ₹6,30,000/- as against ₹7,02,840/-. Thus, the compensation is reduced from ₹7,02,840/- to ₹6,30,000/-

¶63

It is submitted that, there was no existence of policy as on the date of accident i.e., 06.05.2022. Though there is a own damage policy as on the date of accident, it does not cover the third party risk and as amendment was brought to the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that there will not policy of "pay and recovery" since 01.04.2022, the Insurance Company was exonerated from paying compensation and liability was fixed on respondent No.1owner of the vehicle involved in the road traffic accident. As such, respondent No.1-owner is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition, within one month from the date of this order.

¶64

On such deposit, petitioners/claimants shall withdraw the compensation amount amongst themselves equally.

¶65

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:19256 MFA No. 1915 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

With the aforesaid observation, appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement and for a direction to respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay the compensation is dismissed, however the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from ₹7,02,840/- to ₹6,30,000/-, rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal remain undisturbed.

¶68

Ordered accordingly.

¶69

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶70

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Sri. Kumarswamy v. Sri. Dileep v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kumarswamy v. Sri. Dileep v

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

Sri. Hanumanthaiah Vs Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd.

Narasimhaiah Vs the Managing Director

Shivamma Vs Basavarajappa K B

Smt Bhavani J R Vs Sri Pramod H v

Sri K Hari Prasad Vs Smt Manjula

M S Kiran Vs Naveen R