Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
Mohammad Nawaz, K S Hemalekha, JJ.
Laxmi, W/O Pampanna And Ors.- Appellants
Versus
Nagaraj @ Nagaraj Shaukar S/O Siddangouda And Ors. - Respondents
Miscl. First Appeal No.202673 of 2024 (MV-D), Miscl. First Appeal No.203042 of 2024(MV-I)
Decided On : 12-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Smt. Patil Shantabai Subhash, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Mohd. Abdul Quayum, Adv.
Dependents of a deceased have the right to compensation, which should not be limited to financial dependency; appropriate deduction for claims must be aligned with legal standards and precedents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Award of compensation - Compensation awarded to claimants for loss of dependency, consortium, and other heads - Tribunal's deductions for dependents challenged - Claimants entitled to adjust compensation based on dependents and future income prospects as recognized in precedent. (Paras 8-20)
(B) Legal Principles - Dependents of deceased entitled to claim compensation regardless of full financial dependency; deducting 1/4th income for dependents under guidelines. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appeal stems from a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of a rider and injuries to a pillion rider. The claimants include the deceased’s family and the injured rider. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
Compensation awarded to family and injured updated as Rs.66,14,027/- and Rs.6,04,750/- respectively, considering loss of income and damage claims. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 20)
Issues: Main issues include the appropriate deduction for calculating compensation and determination of dependency of claimants. (Para 6-10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the Tribunal's deduction inappropriate and reaffirmed compensation rights irrespective of claimants' financial dependency, emphasizing the necessity of fairness in compensation. (Paras 8, 10)
Result: Appeals allowed in part; compensation modified accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and compensation awarded (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding dependency and compensation deduction (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's reasoning on dependency compensation calculation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. principles for loss of consortium compensation (Para 12) |
| 5. final compensation amounts and investment orders (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Lingasugur in MVC Nos.79/2022 and 82/2022.
2. The accident which occurred on 21.11.2021 involving motorcycles bearing registration No.KA-36/ES-4014 and KA-34/U-0827 resulting in the death of one Pampanna, the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-36/ES-4014 and injuries to the pillion rider by name Prajwal is not in dispute.
3. The claimants in MVC No.82/2022 are the wife and children of deceased-Pampanna and the claimant in MVC No.79/2022 is the injured, son of Pampanna.
4. The Tribunal clubbed MVC Nos.79/2022 and82/2022 along with MVC No.83/2022 filed by the injured pillion rider of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/U-0827 and passed a common judgment.
5. In MVC No.79/2022, the claimant/injured was awarded a compensation of Rs.4,97,000/- and the claimants No.1, 4 and 5 in MVC No.82/2022 were awarded a total compensation of Rs.57,26,300/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal was not proper in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased instead of 1/4th, in view of five dependents and the Tribunal’s finding that claimants No.2 and3 are not the dependents of the deceased is erroneous.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contended that claimants No.2 and 3 are the major sons of the deceased and therefore, they were not financially dependent on the deceased, hence, they are not entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency. He further contended that the Tribunal has rightly observed that they have not produced any documents to show that they are students. He therefore contented that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased while considering the loss of dependency.
8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Birender and Others reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
“14. ….the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation, which should necessarily follow that even the major, married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether they are fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.”
9. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to show that claimants No.2 and 3 who are admittedly the sons of deceased, were not dependents and there is no material to show that they are either employed anywhere or they are having income from any source.
10. In view of the judgment referred above, the Tribunal was not proper in denying compensation to the said claimants and deducting 1/3rd of the income of deceased while awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.
11. The income of the deceased after deducting the income tax has been arrived at Rs.55,716/-. He was aged about 51 years and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly added 15% of the income towards future prospects and took the income at Rs.64,073/-, which is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as respondent No.3. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of the income while calculating the loss of dependency. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.63,43,227/- (Rs.64,073 x 11 x 12 x ¾) towards loss of depend
