The Manager v. Kamalabai Bheemaraj

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026MFA/5014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, MFA (MV-D) No. 5014 of 2018; insurer's appeal against death-compensation award; sole dependent widow; personal-expense deduction raised from one-third to 50%; notional income Rs.2,00,000 p.a.; multiplier 7; Sarala Verma (2009 ACJ 1298) applied; conventional heads — funeral Rs.15,000, estate Rs.15,000, spousal consortium Rs.40,000; award reduced from Rs.10,78,331 to Rs.7,70,000; appeal partly allowed; MVC No.101/2017, Additional MACT-IV Chitradurga.

What did the court decide?

Compensation granted by the Tribunal in MVC No.101/2017 reduced from Rs.10,78,331/- to Rs.7,70,000/- payable to respondent No.1; any amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. ¶Order (i)

The Manager Vs Kamalabai Bheemaraj — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶Order (i)

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation of Rs.10,78,331/- awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and exorbitant. +2 more

¶4

Court's answer

The Tribunal's award was excessive; on recomputation the total compensation payable to respondent No.1 under the various heads is Rs.7,70,000/- only (dependency Rs.7,00,000 + funeral Rs.15,000 + estate Rs.15,000 + spousal consortium Rs.40,000).

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Since respondent No.1 is the only dependent of the deceased, 50% of his earnings — and not one-third as the Tribunal allowed — had to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.

¶6

Key takeaways

Taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, deducting 50% thereof and applying the appropriate multiplier '7', the loss of dependency payable to respondent No.1 is Rs.7,00,000/- (2,00,000 x 50% x 7).ratio¶6
Respondent No.1 is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.ratio¶6
Respondent No.1 is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 5014 of 2018 (MV-D), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, 11.06.2026) — Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. appealed under S.173(1) MV Act against the award dated 02.03.2018 of the Additional MACT-IV, Chitradurga in MVC No.101/2017, which had granted Rs.10,78,331/- (with interest @ 6% p.a.) to Kamalabai, widow of Bheemaraj who died in a 2016 road traffic accident, liability having been fixed on the insurer. Holding the award excessive for a single-dependent household, the Court applied the Sarala Verma principle (2009 ACJ 1298): with only one dependent, 50% — not one-third — of the deceased's notional income of Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. was deducted towards personal and living expenses, and multiplier '7' was applied, fixing loss of dependency at Rs.7,00,000/- (2,00,000 x 50% x 7); to this were added funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and loss of spousal consortium Rs.40,000/-. The recomputed schedule comprised only these four heads and did not carry forward the Tribunal's heads of loss of love and affection (Rs.50,000) and loss of life expectancy (Rs.25,000). Total compensation was reduced from Rs.10,78,331/- to Rs.7,70,000/-; appeal allowed in part; any amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:28238 MFA No. 5014 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5014 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHARADA COMPLEX OPP K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND B.D. ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, T P HUB LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 025 BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶8

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

KAMALABAI BHEEMARAJ W/O LATE BHEEMARAJ AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O NO.6/137, BHAGWAN MAHAVEER ROAD, INFRONT OF KENCHAPPA HOSPITAL, DAVANAGERE NOW R/O. C/O. PRADEEP PRADEEP

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28238 MFA No. 5014 of 2018

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

KENU, BURUJANHATTEY ROAD, NEAR ANEBAGILU, CHITRAURGA.

¶16

CHANDRAKANTH S/O JAWAHARALAL OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO.KA-17/C,-4716, R/O 659, SREE RATHOD FERTILIZERS, CHOWKIPET, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶19

VIDE ORDER DATED 09.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-IV, CHITRADURAGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,78,331/WITH INTEREST @ 6%P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28238 MFA No. 5014 of 2018

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah learned counsel for

¶27

the appellant.

¶28

Respondents failed to contest the matter despite

¶29

service of notice upon them.

¶30

Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims TribunalIV Chitradurga in M.V.C. No.101/2017 dated 02.03.2018.

¶31

On the ground that her husband Bheemaraj (hereinafter be referred to as 'deceased' for brevity) died in a road traffic accident which occurred in the year 2016, respondent No.1 herein filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- in total. Tribunal through the impugned order held that respondent No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,78,331/- as compensation. Liability was fixed upon the appellant herein to pay the same. On the ground that compensation granted is excessive and exorbitant, appellant is before the Court.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28238 MFA No. 5014 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that basing on Ex.P.7 to P-11 individual income tax returns and Ex.P12 to P16 income tax returns in respect of the Hindu undivided family of the deceased, Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. Learned counsel states that even according to the version of respondent No.1, she is the sole dependent being the wife of the deceased. Therefore, tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the earnings of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive. However, tribunal deducted 1/3^rd of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Learned counsel further submits that apart from granting Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, tribunal granted a sum of Rs.50,000 towards loss of love and affection. Also no reason is stated in the impugned order as to why Rs.25,000/- is granted towards loss of life expectancy. Learned counsel ultimately seeks to pass

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28238 MFA No. 5014 of 2018

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

necessary orders by reducing the sum that is awarded as compensation.

¶38

As rightly contended, the version of respondent No.1 is that she is the only dependent of the deceased. As per the decision of the Honb'e Apex Court in Sarala Verma and others -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and another case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, where the dependents are 2 to 3, 1/3^rd of the earnings of the deceased are required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses, which the deceased would have incurred for himself or herself had he/her been alive. Thus as the dependent is only one in number, this Court is of the view that 50% of the earnings of the deceased were required to

¶39

have been deducted towards the personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive. Thus taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, on deducting 50% of the earnings towards his personal and living expenses which he would have incurred for himself had he

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28238 MFA No. 5014 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

been alive and applying the appropriate multiplier '7', the compensation which respondent No.1/claimant is entitled

¶43

to receive towards loss of dependency is Rs.7,00,000(2,00,000x50%x7). Also respondent No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses,

¶44

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/towards loss of spousal consortium.

¶45

Thus the total sum which respondent

¶46

No.1/claimant is entitled to receive as compensation under

¶47

different heads is as under:-

¶48

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	7,00,000.00
Funeral expenses	15,000.00
Loss of estate	15,000.00
Loss of Spousal consortium	40,000.00
Total	7,70,000.00

¶49

Tribunal held that respondent No.1 is entitled to a

¶50

sum of Rs.10,78,331/as compensation. However, aforementioned discussion makes it clear that respondent

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28238 MFA No. 5014 of 2018

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,70,000/- only. Hence, the

¶54

appeal is disposed with the following:-

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

ii. Compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims TribunalIV, Chitradurga through orders in MVC No.101/2017 dated 02.03.2018 is reduced from Rs.10,78,331/- to Rs.7,70,000/-.

¶58

iii. Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith.

¶59

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶60

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

The Manager v. Kamalabai Bheemaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Kamalabai Bheemaraj

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

Sri. K. Manjunatha Vs Smt. Nagaveni. G. H.

Sri Manjunatha B S @ Hemanth B S Vs Smt. Ushasrani @ Chaitra P

Sri T Balan Vs Smt Manjula P

Inderjit Yadav Vs Smt. Prakruthi. M

Smt. Prakruthi. M Vs Sri. Inderjit Yadav

Sri M a Venu Vs Smt. a S Latha