Karnataka High Court
Laxmavva W/O Huchchappa Goudar vs Mohammad Harris Satar on 29 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546
MFA No. 22963 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22963 OF 2013 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAXMAVVA
W/O. HUCHCHAPPA GOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. SMT. SHANTAVVA @ MALLAVVA
W/O. MUTTAPPA GOUDER,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
3. SMT. BHIMAVVA @ BHIMAMMA
W/O. MUTTAPPA GOUDER,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
4. NINGAMMA
D/O. MUTHAPPA GOUDAR,
GIRIJA A. AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BYAHATTI
5. MANJAVVA
Digitally signed by GIRIJA
A. BYAHATTI D/O. MUTHAPPA GOUDAR,
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:20
+0530
6. SRI. RAMESH
S/O. MUTHAPPA GOUDER,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
7. RAVICHANDRA
S/O. MUTHAPPA GOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546
MFA No. 22963 of 2013
HC-KAR
8. GEETHA D/O. MUTHAPPA GOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
(PETITIONERS NO.4 TO 8 SINCE MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL
MOTHER PETITIONER NO.3)
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
PARAMANHATTI,
TQ: KUSHTAGI,
NOW R/O: RANGANATH NAGAR,
BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANKIT DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MOHAMMAD HARRIS SATAR,
SATATVAS MADANI MANASIN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO. KA-19/Z-0878,
R/O: SARP MURNAGAR,
AIRPORT ROAD, BAJAPE,
TQ: MANGALORE.
2. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
ANIL AMBANI GROUP,
BRANCH OFFICE,
R/O: KANKNADI,
TQ: MANGALORE, DIST: MANGALORE.
(POLICY NO. 140479211003697)
VALID FROM 5.11.2009 TO 4.11.2010).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546
MFA No. 22963 of 2013
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08-06-2012 IN
M.V.C. NO.615/2010 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER MACT-VIII, BADAMI BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION REASONABLY AND ADEQUATELY, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Sri. Ankit Desai, who appears physically before this Court and represents Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel on record for the appellants. Also heard Sri. S. K. Kayakmath, learned counsel for respondent No.2, who appears through Video Conference.
2. The first appellant being the mother, appellants 2 and 3 being the wives, and appellants 4 to 8 being the children of the deceased Muttappa (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased", brevity), who died in a -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546 MFA No. 22963 of 2013 HC-KAR road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2010, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in total. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VIII, Badami, which dealt with the case as MVC No.615/2010, rendered orders on 08.06.2012 holding that they are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,94,400/- as compensation. Projecting that they are entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is filed.
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased, as an agriculturist-cum- coolie, was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month only. Learned counsel submits that the accident occurred in the year 2010 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, is taking the notional income as Rs.5,500/- per month, and therefore, the said figure ought to have been adopted by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546 MFA No. 22963 of 2013 HC-KAR Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal failed to add future prospects, erred in applying standard deductions and awarded a very meagre sum as compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is also on lower side. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.
4. Learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 though states that the compensation granted is justifiable, yet did not raise any objection for taking the notional income as Rs.5,500/- per month as pleaded by learned counsel for the appellants.
5. The deceased was aged around 50 years as on the date of accident and there is no dispute in that regard. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546 MFA No. 22963 of 2013 HC-KAR ors.1, 25% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. The dependents being eight in number, 1/5th of the earnings are required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Also, basing on the aforementioned decision, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 13. Thus, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive towards 'loss of dependency' is as under:
Notional monthly income Rs.5,500.00 Annual income Rs.66,000.00 On adding 25% towards future Rs.82,500.00 prospects On deducting one-fifth towards Rs.66,000.00 personal and living expenses Loss of dependency, on applying Rs.8,58,000.00 the appropriate multiplier 13 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546 MFA No. 22963 of 2013 HC-KAR
6. Therefore, it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.8,58,000/- towards 'loss of dependency'.
7. Also, the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/-
towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. The first appellant being the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of filial consortium'. Appellants 2 and 3 being the wives of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of spousal consortium'. Appellants 4 to 8 being the children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of parental consortium'.
8. Thus, the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive is as under:
Head of Compensation Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 8,58,000 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of filial consortium 40,000 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546 MFA No. 22963 of 2013 HC-KAR Loss of parental consortium 40,000 Total 10,08,000.00
9. The Tribunal, through the impugned order, awarded a sum of Rs.3,94,400/- only. However, in light of the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,08,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VIII, Badami, through orders in MVC No.615/2010 dated 08.06.2012, is enhanced from Rs.3,94,400/- to Rs.10,08,000/-. iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14546 MFA No. 22963 of 2013 HC-KAR of deposit, except for the period of delay of 319 days as per the order dated 30.06.2014. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
v. All the appellants are entitled to equal share out of the enhanced sum. Appellants 1 to 3 are entitled to receive their respective shares on deposit. Appellants 4 to 8 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares along with accrued interest on producing sufficient proof of having attained the age of majority.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17