Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, JJ
SMT. JEEVAMMA W/O. LATE BHARADWAJULU – Appellant
Versus
SATISH S/O, LATE, BHARADWAJULU – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104429 OF 2023 (MV-D)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI.NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE
The court established that compensation for loss of dependency must consider future prospects and appropriate deductions for personal expenses, aligning with judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation due to death in a road traffic accident - The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,92,650/- which was challenged for enhancement - The deceased was a tailor earning Rs.1,000/- per day; the Tribunal's notional income assessment was deemed improper - Future prospects and personal expenses were to be recalculated based on established legal precedents. (Paras 2, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Compensation Calculation - The court determined the loss of dependency to be Rs.16,30,200/-, with additional amounts for loss of consortium and other expenses, totaling Rs.17,40,200/- - The court emphasized the necessity of proper assessment in accordance with judicial guidelines. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's husband died in a motorcycle accident on 7.7.2021 while riding as a pillion. The claimant incurred various expenses due to his death and sought compensation, arguing that the Tribunal's assessment of income and deductions was flawed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the deceased's monthly income should include future prospects and adjusted personal expenses, leading to a total compensation of Rs.17,40,200/-.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the claimant provided sufficient grounds for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal's income assessment was incorrect and should have accounted for future prospects and a lower deduction for personal expenses, in line with established case law.
Result: Appeal allowed in-part; the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.17,40,200/-.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant seeks compensation for husband's death in an accident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents contest liability and compensation amount. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. tribunal's findings and evidence evaluation. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. court calculates enhanced compensation based on legal precedents. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court orders enhanced compensation and liability. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
The claimant has presented this appeal seeking enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 6th March 2023 passed in MVC No.605/2021 by the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-V, Ballari.
2. That appellant claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act on account of death of her husband Sri Baradwajulu in a road traffic accident that took place on 7.7.2021 at 6.00 a.m. when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-34EB 9929 driven by respondent no.1 towards bus stand in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and when they came near Jilla Kaigarika office, Hospet Road, drove his vehicle in high speed and dashed to a pedestrian by name Pradeep deceased fell down from the motor cycle sustained grievous injuries all over the body and thereafter died in the Hospital. The claimant being his wife had spent substantial money towards medical expenses, transportation of dead body, funeral and other expenses. According to claimant, deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 50 years at the time of accident and was a Tailor by occupation earning Rs.1,000/-per day. The claimant was completely depending upon him and because of untimely death of deceased, who was the bread earner in the family, the claimant is suffering a lot and she has lost love and affection of her husband and hence, prayed to award the compensation as prayed in the petition.
3. Before the Tribunal, both the respondents appeared and opposed the petition by filing detailed objections independently denying entire assertions made in the petition. It is contended by respondent no.1 that, as the said vehicle was insured with respondent no.2, if at all respondent no.1 is liable to pay the compensation, it is respondent no.2 to pay the same.
4. So far as respondent no.2 is concerned, the very nature of the accident, age of the deceased, his profession, monthly income etc., is denied. According to respondent no.2, the rider of motor bike is not holding effective driving licence and thereby, respondent no.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four relevant issues. To prove the case of the claimants, she herself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P22. She also examined two other witnesses by name Raju and Pradeep as PWs. 2 and 3 and closed her evidence.
6. Respondent No.2 has produced the copy of the policy as per Ex.R1. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by respondent no.1. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence placed on record by both the side, held that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent riding of the motor bike but, however, it is held that respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation as policy was admitted as on the date of the accident and respondent no.2 to indemnify. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads:
| Sl.No. | Heads | Amount Rs. |
| 1. | Loss of Dependency | 12,22,650-00 |
| 2. | Loss of Estate | 15,000-00 |
| 3. | Funeral Expenses | 15,000-00 |
| 4. | Spousal Consortium | 40,000-00 |
| Total | 12,92,650-00 |
7. Being aggrieved by the said liability, the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the liability have become final. Now the claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased was a tailor by occupa
