Karnataka High Court
Sheethai vs Jaane Alam on 18 November, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB
MFA No. 204428 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.204428 OF 2025 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SHEETHAL
W/O LATE MANMATH,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. MARUTI
S/O HANMANTHAPPA,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
Digitally signed by
3. KASHINATH
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ S/O MARUTI,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH COURT AGE: 41 YEARS,
OF KARNATAKA
OCC: LABOUR,
ALL ARE R/O: H.NO.1/81,
SULTANPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR.
NOTE: THE CLAIMANT NO.3
NAGAMMA DIED AND HENCE
SHE IS NOT MADE AS PARTY TO THIS APPEAL.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB
MFA No. 204428 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. JAANE ALAM
S/O TASLEEM,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 10, VIII-SHARIFPUR MAJRA,
SINORA, S.DIDAULI THE-AMROHA,
C/O: MOHAD AMIR
S/O SHRI MASRURU HUSAIN LALWARA PS,
MAINATHER MORADABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH - 244 001.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, OPP: SUB-JAIL,
NEAR IDBI BANK, BIDAR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJAY M.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 07.11.2025 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL,
MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.05.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT BIDAR IN MVC NO.531/2022, AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB
MFA No. 204428 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 04.05.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar in MVC No.531/2022.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that when deceased along with his family, relatives and other villagers went to tour to see religious places across Karnataka, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh etc., from Bidar in a tourist vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA- 03/AA-7654, on 29.05.2022 at about 5:00 A.M., when they were proceeding from Lakhimpur Khiri towards Bahraich to reach Ayodhya City, at that time, a truck bearing reg.No.UP-21/CT-4120 which was coming from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner with high -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB MFA No. 204428 of 2025 HC-KAR speed dashed to the tourist bus, as a result, the deceased Manmath died on the spot and other inmates also sustained grievous injuries.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed separate written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.19,10,130/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed respondent No.2 Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB MFA No. 204428 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- by working as florist. However, the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. -v- Pranay Sethi And Others [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was self-employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' is warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The said principle shall be applied to the present case.
c) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram and others, [2018 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB MFA No. 204428 of 2025 HC-KAR ACJ 2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
d) Fourthly, he contended that there are three dependents on the deceased. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side. With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter- contentions:
a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB MFA No. 204428 of 2025 HC-KAR month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
c) Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased Manmath died in the road traffic accident occurred on 29.05.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB MFA No. 204428 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting documents to substantiate their claim. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2022, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.14,750/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'Pranay Sethi' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.20,650/-. Since there are three dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.26,43,200/- -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB MFA No. 204428 of 2025 HC-KAR (Rs.20,650*12*16*2/3) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
11. In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of 'loss of estate' and compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'Magma General Insurance Company Limited' (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'. Appellant Nos.2 and 3, father and brother of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- each under the head of 'loss of filial consortium' and loss of love and affection.
13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB
MFA No. 204428 of 2025
HC-KAR
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 26,43,200
Funeral expenses 16,500
Loss of estate 16,500
Loss of spousal consortium 44,000
Loss of Filial consortium 44,000
Loss of love and affection 44,000
Total 28,08,200
14. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.28,08,200/- as against Rs.19,10,130/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6%p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6950-DB MFA No. 204428 of 2025 HC-KAR within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.
f) In view of the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 343 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43