- 1 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 1

ST

DAY OF JUNE, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102121 OF 2015

C/W

MFA CROB. NO.100092 OF 2016

IN MFA NO.102121/2015

BETWEEN:

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD,

BELAGAVI, HEREIN REPRESENTED

BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD

PARTY HUB OFFICE, SRINATH

COMPLEX, 2

ND

FLOOR, NEW

COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580 029,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SHAILA W/O PIRAJI PATIL

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,

SHRI PRAVEEN S/O PIRAJI PATIL,

AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,

R/O: H.NO.78/1, VIDYA NAGAR,

- 2 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

2.

MRS. RANI W/O SACHIN PATIL,

AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O: MENSI GALLI, BELAGAVI.

3. SHRI NEETA TOURS AND TRAVELS,

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON,

H.NO.772,

MUMBAI-NASHIK ROAD,

PADGHA-421302, BHIWANDI,

MAHARASHTRA STATE.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

(NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

30.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.915/2013, ON THE FILE O F

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND

MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT

BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,13,800/ -

WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM 07.05.201 3

TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA CROB.NO.100092/2016

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. PRAVEEN S/O. PIRAJI PATIL,

AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,

R/O: H.NO.78/1,

VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI,

DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008.

2. MRS. RANI W/O. SACHIN PATIL,

AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

- 3 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

R/O: MENSI GALLI,

BELGAVI – 590 016.

…CROSS OBJECTORS

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. NEETA TOURS AND TRAVELS,

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON,

H.NO.772, MUMBALI-NASHIK ROAD,

PADGA – 421302, BHIWANDI,

MAHARASTRA STATE – 421 302.

2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD,

BELAGAVI – 590 012.

…RESPONDENTS

(SRI R.R. MANE ADVOCATE FOR R2;

NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41

RULE 22 OF CPC., PRAYING TO DISMISS MFA NO.102121/2 015

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2015

PASSED BY THE LEARNED TENTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, IN MVC

NO.915/2013 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED

IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN T HE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE

SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT

ON 15.04.2026, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

- 4 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

The insurer of the bus bearing No.MH-04-FK-6464 ha s

preferred the appeal in MFA No.102121/2015 praying to set

aside the judgment and award dated 30.04.2015 passe d in

MVC No.915/2013 by learned X Additional District and Sessions

Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi.

2.

The claimants in MVC No.915/2013 have filed cross

objection in MFA CROB No.100092/2016 praying to dis miss the

appeal preferred by the insurer and to award the compensation

as sought in the claim petition.

3.

The claimants are the wife and children of deceased

Sri Piraji Patil. They maintained the petition in M VC

No.915/2013 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against

the owner and insurer of bus bearing No.MH-04-FK-64 64

seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the deat h of Sri

Piraji Patil in a road traffic accident, caused by the driver of the

bus.

4.

On service of notice, the insurer appeared before

the Tribunal and contested the petition by filing its objection.

- 5 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

However, the owner of the bus remained absent befor e the

Tribunal. Hence, he was placed ex-parte.

5.

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed

relevant issues, recorded the evidence and then disposed of the

claim petition on merits of the case. The Tribunal held that the

accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver

of the bus and that of the deceased and apportioned their

contributory negligence to an extent of 70% and 30%

respectively. Though the Tribunal arrived at quantu m of

compensation as Rs.7,34,000/-, in view of contribut ory

negligence of the deceased, it held that the claima nts are

entitled to only a sum of Rs.5,13,800/- by way of compensation

together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of

petition till its realization.

6.

Sri Ravindra R. Mane, learned Counsel for the

Insurer submitted that the Tribunal rightly held that Claimant

No.1 being the widow of the deceased was alone enti tled to

compensation under the head of loss of dependency, loss of

consortium and loss of estate as she was the sole dependant on

the deceased. He further submitted that even then the Tribunal

committed an error in awarding the compensation und er these

- 6 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

heads ignoring the death of Claimant No.1 during pendency of

the claim petition. He submitted that the Tribunal lost sight of

the fact that the children of the deceased had no right to seek

compensation under the head of loss of dependency a nd as

such, the Tribunal would have awarded compensation to them

only under the head of loss of estate and other rel evant

conventional heads. He also submitted that the rate of interest

awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. As such, he prayed

to allow the appeal and to set aside impugned judgm ent and

award.

7.

Per contra, Sri Santosh B. Rawoot, learned Counsel

for the Claimants vehemently submitted that the

Tribunal has failed to appreciate relevant factors such as the

income and age of the deceased, the future prospect s and his

contribution to the family while determining loss of dependency

and that the award is not a just and proper compens ation. He

further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in saddling 30%

of negligence on the part of the deceased in the absence of any

supporting material and it is illegal. As such, he prayed to allow

the appeal and to award the compensation as prayed in the

claim petition.

- 7 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

8. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the materials on record, the fo llowing

points arise for the consideration of the Court:

i.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing

contributory negligence of 30% to the

deceased?

ii.

Whether the claimants have made out valid

grounds to seek enhancement of the

compensation?

iii.

Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding

compensation under the head of loss of

dependency and such other heads in spite of

death of widow of the deceased during

pendency of the claim petition?

Point No.(i) :

9.

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2012 at

06.20 a.m., while the deceased was standing near

Hirebagewadi Police Samudaya Bhavan on Pune-Bengalu ru

Highway in order to cross the road, the bus bearing No.MH-04-

FK-6464 came from the side of Dharwad in very high speed and

dashed against the deceased, due to which he sustai ned

grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 25.12.2012

while undergoing treatment at KIMS hospital, Hubli. The insurer

specifically denied the alleged accident and contended that the

information and the narration about the accident wa s self

serving and concocted. On the other hand, they contended that

- 8 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

the accident was equally due to rash and negligent act of the

deceased, who tried to cross the highway wherein he was not

supposed to cross.

10.

The impugned judgment indicates that the Tribunal

proceeded to hold contributory negligence on the pa rt of the

deceased based on the contents of spot sketch (Ex.P 5), the

complaint (Ex.P2), the charge sheet (Ex.P3) and the admission

of PW-1, on the ground that at the place of accident there was

no zebra crossing and that in the said place National Highway

Authority had fenced the road on both sides in order to avoid

the general public crossing the road. Admittedly, PW-1 is the

daughter of the deceased and she was not an eye wit ness to

the accident. Thereby, it becomes clear that her st atements

were no way helpful for the Tribunal in deciding the question of

negligence.

11.

The materials on record indicate that immediately

after the accident, a complaint came to be lodged against the

driver of the bus alleging he was responsible for the accident.

Based on such complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a

case and investigated the matter. On completion of the

investigation, they laid a charge sheet against the driver of the

- 9 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

bus with an accusation that he was responsible for the

accident. These police papers give raise to a presumption in

favour of the claimants. Admittedly, the insurer ad duced no

evidence before the Tribunal to rebut the presumption arising

out of the police papers and particularly the charge sheet laid

against the driver of the bus. In the above circumstances, this

Court holds that the Tribunal has erred in attribut ing

contributory negligence against the deceased based on

assumption. Accordingly, it is held that the driver of the bus

was solely responsible for the accident and Point N o.(i) is

answered in the negative.

Point Nos.(ii) and (iii)

12.

As noted above, the wife and children of the

deceased maintained the claim petition on 07.05.2013 seeking

compensation for the death of Sri Piraji Patil in a road traffic

accident. Claimant No.1 was the wife of the deceased. She died

during pendency of the petition i.e., on 31.07.2014. In the said

circumstances, Claimant Nos.2 and 3 proceeded with the

matter in their capacity as the claimants as well as the Class-I

heirs of Claimant No.1.

- 10 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

13. The main contention of the insurer is that the

widow of the deceased i.e., Claimant No.1 was alone entitled to

compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of

consortium, loss of estate etc. being the sole dependant of the

deceased and that upon her death, the claim under a bove

mentioned heads stood abated. As such, they contend ed that

the Tribunal committed serious error in awarding compensation

under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss

of estate etc.

14.

It is well settled that the claims and legal liabilities

crystallized at the time of the accident itself and changes post

thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings as

held in Kirti and Another etc. versus Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 . In the present

case the wife of the deceased was alive for more than one year

from the date of the accident. Admittedly, she was one of the

claimants in the petition, which was pending for adjudication as

on the date of her death. Thereafter, the proceedin g was

continued by the remaining claimants in their indiv idual

capacity as well as the Class-I legal heirs of Claimant No.1,

which is clear from the memo filed by them before the Tribunal

on 03.03.2015. In view of the above, this Court does not find

- 11 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

any force in the contention of the insurer about abatement of

portion of the claim on account of the death of Claimant No.1.

Accordingly, the said contention of the insurer is rejected.

15.

The Tribunal arrived at total quantum of

compensation as under:

Sl.

No.

Head Amount

(in Rs.)

1. Loss of dependency 4,29,000.00

2. Loss of estate 1,00,000.00

3. Loss of love and affection 90,000.00

4. Loss of consortium 50,000.00

5. Transportation and funeral expenses 25,000.00

6. Medical, conveyance, attendant charges, etc. 40, 000.00

Total 7,34,000.00

16.

The claimants have sought for enhancement of

compensation on the ground that the Tribunal did not take into

consideration the actual income of the deceased and his future

prospects while determining the loss of dependency. According

to them the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000 /- per

month as an auto driver but the Tribunal took the income of the

deceased only as Rs.6,500/- per month. The material s on

record indicate that the claimants did not adduce any evidence

before the Tribunal either to prove the avocation or the income

of the deceased by producing relevant documents. In such

circumstances, the Tribunal presumed the avocation of the

deceased as a coolie/unskilled labour and relying on decision in

- 12 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

Sayed Sadiq and others Vs Divisional Manager, United

India Insurance Company reported in 2014 ACJ 627

presumed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 6,500/-

per month. Even the KSLSA Chart for Lok-Adalat sett lements

suggests notional monthly income of Rs.6,500/- for the year

2012.

17.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi

(2017) 16 SCC 618 , it was held that 10% of the income

should be considered towards future prospects in case of a self

employed person where the deceased was aged between 50 to

60 years. In this case, the claimants contend that the deceased

was aged 52 years at the time of the accident. Wher eas, the

Tribunal based on the entries in the inquest mahaza r (Ex.P4)

and the post mortem report (Ex.P7) held that the deceased was

aged 55 years at the time of the accident. As such, a sum of

Rs.650/- (i.e., 10% of Rs.6500/-) needs to be added to arrive

at gross income of the deceased. Thus, the gross income of the

deceased would be Rs.7,150/- (i.e., Rs.6,500/- plus Rs.650/-).

Considering the age of the deceased at the relevant time, the

Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier of 11.

- 13 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

18. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the age and

description of the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 in the caus e title,

opined that the son of the deceased was major and w as in a

private service and that Claimant No.3 was a married daughter

of the deceased. During her cross examination, Claimant No.3

even admitted that she got married about 10 years ago. In the

above circumstances, the Tribunal held that Claiman t Nos.2

and 3 were not dependant on the deceased and that t he wife

i.e., Claimant No.1 was sole dependant on the deceased. In the

said circumstances, the Tribunal deducted 50% of th e income

towards personal expenses of the deceased. In the f acts and

circumstances of the case, this Court finds no grou nd to

interfere with such finding of the Tribunal. Thus, loss of

dependency comes to Rs.4,71,900/- (i.e., Rs.3,575/- x 12 x

11).

19.

In Pranay Sethi’s case referred supra, Hon’ble

Apex Court has standardized the compensation to be awarded

under the conventional heads. As per the said judgment a sum

of Rs.15,000/- each shall be awarded under the head of loss of

estate and funeral expenses subject to its enhancement at the

rate of 10% once in 3 years. Hence, it is held that the

- 14 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/- each under the

head of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

20.

In Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nanu

Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Hon’ble Apex Court has expanded

the ambit of ‘consortium’ to include parental and f ilial

consortium, implicitly acknowledging the emotional and

relational loss suffered by children and parents alike. In view of

the same and the enhancement suggested in Pranay Sethi’s

case, it is held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of

Rs.44,000/- each (Rs.40,000/- plus 10% enhancement) under

the head of spousal and parental consortium.

21.

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the

claimants under the head of medical expenses and in cidental

charges by taking into consideration the period of treatment of

the deceased i.e., between 22.12.2012 to 25.12.2012. The said

award was not supported by documentary evidence. Ev en then,

this Court does not find any reason to interfere with such award

made by the Tribunal and same is retained.

22.

For the foregoing reasons, Point Nos.(ii) and (iii)

are answered partly in the affirmative and held tha t the

- 15 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,76,900/-

under the following heads:

Sl.

No.

Head Amount

(in Rs.)

1. Loss of dependency 4,71,900.00

2. Loss of spousal and parental consortium 1,32,00 0.00

3. Loss of estate 16,500.00

4. Funeral expenses 16,500.00

5. Medical expenses 40,000.00

Total 6,76,900.00

23.

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i)

The appeal filed by the claimants is partly

allowed and the appeal filed by the insurer

is dismissed.

(ii)

Consequently, the judgment and award

dated 30.04.2015 passed in MVC

No.915/2013 passed by learned X

Additional District and Sessions Judge and

Additional MACT, Belagavi is modified.

(iii)

The claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.6,76,900/- in place of

Rs.5,13,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

(iv)

The enhanced compensation amount shall

carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of petition till realization.

(v)

The insurer is directed to deposit entire

award amount together with the accrued

interest thereon (minus the amount already

deposited) before the Tribunal, within a

period of two (2) months from this day.

- 16 -

MFA No.102121 OF 2015

C/W. MFA CROB. No.100092 OF 2016

(vi) The claimants are entitled to share in the

compensation amount at the same

proportion as ordered by the Tribunal.

(vii)

Draw the modified award accordingly.

(viii)

The Registry is directed to transmit any

amount deposited in the appeal preferred

by the insurer before this Court and the

trial court record to concerned Tribunal, at

the earliest.

Sd/-

(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

JUDGE

RKM,YAN

CT: CMU