Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
M.I. Arun, B. Muralidhara Pai, JJ
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
SMT.MANJULA W/O SUBHAS – Respondent
MFA No. 101546 of 2020 (MV)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.V. Yaji
For the Respondents: Anjaneya M., Rakesh M. Bilki
The court upheld the determination of notional income based on vehicle ownership and KSLSA guidelines when actual income is unproven, confirming that compensation calculated using established multipliers and future prospects is just.
Headnote:The appeal was filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging an award passed under Section 166 of the same Act. The case pertains to a fatal road accident where a motorcycle rider was struck by an LPT vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,35,000/- to the dependents, attributing sole negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer challenged the notional income of the deceased, the interest rate, and the finding of negligence. The court framed issues regarding the contributory negligence of the deceased and whether the compensation was exorbitant. It was held that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible as he drove on the extreme right side. Regarding the quantum, the court reasoned that the notional income of Rs. 12,000/- per month was reasonable given the deceased's ownership of an auto-rickshaw and alignment with KSLSA guidelines for unskilled persons in 2018. The appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the motor accident claim and the initial award by the tribunal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the assessment of income and the presence of contributory negligence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. determination of sole negligence of the offending vehicle driver based on police records. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. validation of notional income, future prospects, and multiplier in calculating just compensation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final dismissal of the insurer's appeal and confirmation of the tribunal's award. (Para 19) |
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2019 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.712/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, CONSEQUENTLY MODIFY THE AWARD AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.02.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
1. The Insurer of LPT Vehicle 1109 bearing No.KA-63-2872 namely the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has directed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 31.12.2019 passed in MVC No.712/2018 by learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Dharwad, praying to set aside or modify the award against them.
2. The wife, three children and the mother of Sri Subhash Alias Subhaschandra Shindhe maintained the claim petition in MVC No.712/2018 before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of vehicle bearing No.KA-63-2872, on the ground that Sri Subhas Alias Subhaschandra Shindhe met with a road traffic accident on 19.08.2018 due to actionable negligence on the part of its driver and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.
3. On service of the notice, the insurer appeared before the Tribunal and contested the petition by filing their objection. Thereafter, the Tribunal decided the claim petition on merits of the case. Based on the materials placed on record, the Tribunal attributed negligence for the accident to the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-63-2872 and allowed the claim petition in part, holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Further, the Tribunal directed the owner and the insurer to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by the said award, the insurer has come before this Court by way of this appeal.
2. The claimants accepted the award passed by the Tribunal and they did not file any appeal against the impugned award.
3. Sri S.V. Yaji, learned Counsel for Insurer vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month, in the absence of any evidence to show the nature of employment of the deceased, and that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased solely on the ground that he had license for LMV (NT). He submitted that the Tribunal awarded higher compensation on conventional heads contrary to the settled principles of law. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred by awarding interest on award amount at a higher rate i.e, 9% p.a., than the rate of interest, being awarded in normal practice. He contended that the Tribunal even failed to consider composite negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal and absolve the insurer from the liability of paying the compensation.
4. Per contra, Sri Anjaneya M., learned Counsel for Claimants supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, having r
