IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103199 OF 2018 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, APMC YARD, PCA AND RD BANK BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR GADAG, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, DEPUTY MANAGER.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARNAPPA S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SHARADA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WIFE, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN PIN: 582101.

RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF 2. SRI. SOMSHEKARAPPA KARNATAKA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101.

3. SRI. LINGARAJ S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101.

4. PRANAVKUMAR S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101.

5. SRI. SADASHIV S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GORAWAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101.

6. RAVINDRA S/O. RUDRAPPA NAINEGALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582101.

(OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-26/L-2409)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;

NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.368/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GADAG AND ETC., THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 03.01.2018 passed in MVC No.368/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and Additional MACT, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) on the grounds that the claimants are the wife and major children of the deceased. Therefore, half of the income ought to have been deducted, but not 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses. Another ground raised is that claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased is receiving a family pension due to the demise of the deceased under the head ‘loss of dependency’. On these two grounds, the appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The factum of the accident, death of the deceased and also liability of the Insurance Company are not in dispute. The dispute with regard to reduce the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has urged on two folds:

a. Claimant Nos.2 to 5 are major sons and therefore cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased therefore, claimant No.1 being wife, alone can be considered as dependent on the deceased thus, half of the income ought to have been deducted by the Tribunal, but not 1/3^rd b. Another limb of argument by the counsel for appellant is that claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased, is receiving family pension due to the demise of the deceased, therefore she is not entitled compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants submitted that claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased, indicates that the deceased has the responsibility of maintaining the family. As such, the deceased was married, hence, justified deduction of 1/3^rd income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Further, it was submitte