MUTTAWWA W/O. HALAPPA NAIKWADI vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102312 OF 2016 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100105 OF 2022 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO. 102312/2016
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BRANCH GOKAK, D.O.,
REMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS,
REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT PLAZA
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MUTTAWWA W/O HALAPPA NAIKWADI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O: KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI,
PRESENTLY AT C/O SHRI SUDHIR NAGAPPA GADDE,
GADDE PLOT, KANABARGI,
TQ. AND DIST.: BELAGAVI-590015.
2. KUMAR VITHAL S/O HALAPPA NAIKWADI
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI,
PRESENTLY AT,
C/O: SHRI SUDHIR NAGAPPA GADDE,
GADDE PLOT, KANABARGI,
TQ. AND DIST.: BELAGAVI-590015.
Digitally
signed by
ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.11.05
16:39:58
+0530
ROHAN
HADIMANI
T
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
3. KUMARI RENUKA D/O HALLAPPA NAIKWADI
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI,
PRESENTLY AT,
C/O: SHRI SUDHIR NAGAPPA GADDE,
GADDE PLOT, KANABARGI,
TQ. AND DIST.: BELAGAVI-590015.
4. KUMARI CHANNAWWA D/O HALAPPA NAIKWADI
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
R/O: KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI,
PRESENTLY AT,
C/O. SHRI SUDHIR NAGAPPA GADDE,
GADDE PLOT, KANABARGI,
TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590015.
5. KUMAR CHINNAPPA @ RAMKRISHNA
S/O HALAPPA NAIKWADI
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS,
R/O: KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI,
PRESENTLY AT,
C/O: SHRI SUDHIR NAGAPPA GADDE,
GADDE PLOT, KANABARGI,
TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590015.
SINCE PETITIONER NO.2 TO 5
BEING MINORS R/BY THEIR
M/G RESPONDENT NO.1.
6. SMT. INDRAWWA W/O SANNALAXMAN NAIKWADI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.
7. SANNALAXMAN S/O ALLAPPA NAIKWADI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.
8. SRI. RAMAPPA HALAPPA HUKKERI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KANKANWADI VILLAGE,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILER
BEARING NO.CNL-5058,
KA-23/TA-1606, 1607)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7;
R2 TO R5 ARE MINORS R/BY R1;
NOTICE TO R8 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC
NO.2348/2014 ON THE FILED OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND VI MACT, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI EXAMINE
THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 18.04.2016 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA.CROB NO.100105/2022
BETWEEN:
1. MUTTAWWA W/O. HALAPPA NAIKWADI
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
2. KUMAR VITHAL S/O. HALAPPA NAYAKWADI
AGE. 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
3. KUMARI RENUKA D/O. HALAPPA NAIKWADI
AGE. 12 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
4. KUMARI CHANNAWWA D/O. HALAPPA NAIKWADI
AGE. 9 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
5. KUMAR CHINNAPPA @ RAMKRISHNA
S/O. HALAPPA NAIKWADI
AGE. 6 YEARS,
ALL ARE C/O. SUDHIR NAGAPPA GADDE,
GADDE PLOT, KANABARGI
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI
(CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1 MOTHER OF THE CROSS
OBJECTOR NO.2 TO 5 R/BY CROSS OBJECTORS NO.2 TO 5.
6. INDRAWWA W/O. SANNALAXMAN NAIKWADI
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
KANKANAWADI,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
7. SANNALAXMAN S/O. ALLAPPA NAIKWADI
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. NILL,
KANKANAWADI
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH GOKAK
D.O.RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI
R/BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE ARIHANT PLAZA,
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
R/BY ITS MANAGER.
2. RAMAPPA S/O. HALAPPA HUKKERI
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
KANKANAWADI
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2016 PASSED BY THE V
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND VI MACT,
BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.2348/2014 AND AWARD
THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITON BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. M.F.A. No.102312/2016 is filed by the
Insurance Company assailing the impugned judgment
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
fastening the liability to pay compensation and also on the
quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side,
whereas, M.F.A. No.100105/2022 is filed by the claimants
by way of cross-objection, seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge and VI Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Belagavi, (for short, ‘the MACT’) in M.V.C.
No.2348/2014, vide judgment and award dated
18.04.2016.
2. Brief facts of the case is that:
On 27.02.2014, at about 1:10 p.m., after unloading
the sugarcane from the tractor bearing registration
No.CNL-5058, attached to trailers bearing registration
Nos.KA-23/TA-1607 and KA-23/TA-1608, the deceased
Halappa Sannalaxman Naikwadi was proceeding near
Kankanwadi-Katakbhavi Road. At that time, the driver of
the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, as a result of which the deceased was caught
between the two trailers. Due to the impact, the deceased
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
sustained grievous injuries to his head and succumbed to
the injuries on the way to the hospital.
3. The claimants, namely, claimant No.1, being
the wife of the deceased; claimant Nos.2 to 5, being his
children; and claimant Nos.6 and 7, being his parents,
filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking
compensation on account of the death of the deceased in a
road traffic accident.
4. The Insurance Company entered appearance
and filed its statement of objections, resisting the claim
petition. It contended that it was not liable to pay
compensation, as the risk of the coolies engaged for
loading and unloading sugarcane in the tractor-trailer unit
was not covered under the insurance policy. It was further
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date
of the accident.
5. It was also contended that the claimants had
concocted a false story with an intention to claim
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
compensation and that the liability of the Insurance
Company, if any, was subject to the terms and conditions
of the insurance policy. On these grounds, the Insurance
Company sought dismissal of the claim petition insofar as
it was concerned.
6. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence
adduced by the parties and appreciating the same,
proceeded to allow the claim petition in part, awarding
compensation of ₹23,38,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of the petition till its realization.
7. The Tribunal further held that respondent
Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle, respectively, were jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation. Accordingly, the Insurance
Company was directed to deposit the compensation
amount vide judgment and award dated 18.04.2016.
8. Being aggrieved by the fastening of liability
upon it and also contending that the compensation
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, the Insurance
Company has preferred M.F.A. No.102312/2016.
9. The claimants have filed cross-objections, which
is registered in M.F.A. No.100105/2022, seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
10. Heard learned counsel Smt. Preeti Shashank
appearing for the Insurance Company and learned counsel
Sri K. Anandkumar appearing for claimant Nos.1 to 7. Both
the appeals were heard together and are taken up for
common disposal.
11. The records of the Tribunal have been perused.
12. Having regard to the rival contentions urged by
learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise
for consideration:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability
upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the award?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
requires interference by this Court?
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
3. Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal
requires modification?
4. What order?
13. The Insurance Company contended that, the
Tribunal failed to notice that the insurance policy issued in
respect of the tractor-trailer unit did not cover the risk of
coolies engaged for loading and unloading. It was
specifically contended that the deceased was engaged by
the insured for loading and unloading sugarcane in the
tractor-trailer unit, which fact was also admitted by
claimant No.1, the wife of the deceased, during her cross-
examination.
14. It was further contended that, the Insurance
Company had issued a miscellaneous and special type of
policy in respect of the tractor-trailer unit and that the risk
of coolies was not covered under the said policy. Further,
as per the Registration Certificate, the seating capacity of
the tractor was only one.
15. It was further contended that, despite the
Insurance Company having specifically raised these
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
objections in its statement of objections, the Tribunal
failed to appreciate the same in their proper perspective.
Therefore, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company
is illegal and erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
16. The Insurance Company also challenged the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It was
contended that the Tribunal had awarded an excessive
sum of ₹16,12,800/- towards loss of dependency by
adding 50% of the income towards future prospects,
despite the claimants having failed to produce any
documentary evidence to establish the income of the
deceased.
17. It was further contended that, the Tribunal had
awarded excessive compensation under the heads of loss
of estate and loss of love and affection.
18. It was also contended that, in view of the
judgment of this Court in Ms. Joyeeta Bose and Others v.
Venkateshan V. and Others, rendered in M.F.A.
No.5896/2018 c/w M.F.A. Nos.4444/2018 and 4659/2018
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
(MV), decided on 24.08.2020, the rate of interest awarded
by the Tribunal requires to be reduced from 9% to 6% per
annum.
19. On these grounds, the Insurance Company
sought for setting aside of the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal.
20. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants
contended that, insofar as the liability is concerned, the
Tribunal has rightly held that respondent No.2-Insurance
Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is
under an obligation to indemnify respondent No.1-owner.
Accordingly, learned counsel supported the findings
recorded by the Tribunal insofar as fastening liability upon
the Insurance Company is concerned.
21. It was contended that, the Tribunal had
awarded inadequate compensation under the head of loss
of dependency by assessing the monthly income of the
deceased at only ₹7,000/- instead of ₹15,000/-.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
22. It was further contended that, the Tribunal had
not properly considered the addition towards future
prospects in accordance with the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
23. It was also contended that, the compensation
awarded under the head of loss of love and affection was
inadequate. Accordingly, the claimants sought modification
of the impugned judgment and award by enhancing the
compensation.
REASONING
24. Insofar as fastening of liability is concerned,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended
that, the policy issued by the Insurance Company did not
cover the risk of a loader.
25. According to the claimants, the deceased was
engaged by the insured for loading and unloading
sugarcane in the tractor-trailer unit. Claimant No.1, who
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
was examined as P.W.1, admitted the said fact during her
cross-examination.
26. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
further contended that, the policy issued in respect of the
tractor-trailer unit was a special type of policy, under
which the risk of coolies was not covered. It was also
pointed out that, as per the Registration Certificate, the
seating capacity of the tractor was only one. In support of
its contention, the Insurance Company produced the policy
at Ex.R.1.
27. The Tribunal, while fastening liability upon the
Insurance Company, assigned the reason that there was
no evidence adduced by respondent No.2-Insurance
Company to establish that respondent No.1-owner had
violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
However, on perusal of Ex.R.1, it is specifically mentioned
that the policy does not cover the carriage of passengers.
28. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
argued tat, during her cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
that her husband, the deceased, was travelling on the
tractor. Thus, the deceased was travelling in the tractor
contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. Therefore, it is the submission of the Insurance
Company that, there was a violation of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, which has a bearing on
the liability of the insurer.
29. On the contrary, learned counsel for the
claimants argued that, the deceased in this case, was
engaged for loading and un loading sugar cane in the
tractor and trailer. In the cross examination of PW1, she
being the wife of the deceased has stated that, on that
day, the deceased was engaged for loading and un loading
of sugar cane in the tractor attached with trailer.
30. Learned counsel for the claimants relied upon
the judgment of this court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Shri. Maruthi decided on
27.12.2010, wherein it is observed that,
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
The claimants, were carrying stones for
constructing a ridge in the land belonging to the insured
so as to store the water, and thereby the claimants were
neither gratuitous passengers nor persons who were
traveling in the tractor trailer for the purpose other than
agricultural operations, the combination of tractor-trailer
is nothing short of a goods carriage. When once it is
held as goods carriage vehicle, by virtue of sec. II-1(1)
of fully worded policy and also provisions of sec.147, the
claim of the claimants on hand is covered.
31. On the basis of the observation made in the
aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the claimants
argued that, in this case also the policy is covered and
therefore, the Insurance Company is liable for
compensation.
32. On going through the observation made in the
aforesaid judgment relied by the learned counsel for the
claimants, which is squarely applicable to the facts on
hand, this court is of the opinion that, the Insurance
Company is liable to pay the compensation.
33. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
Company contended that the Tribunal had awarded
excessive compensation under the head of loss of
dependency by adding 50% of the income towards future
prospects, despite the fact that the claimants had not
produced any documentary evidence to establish the
income of the deceased.
34. It was further contended that the Tribunal had
also awarded excessive compensation under the head of
loss of love and affection without properly appreciating the
material available on record.
35. In the present case, on perusal of the impugned
judgment and award, it is evident that the Tribunal had
assessed the notional income of the deceased at ₹7,000/-
per month. However, as per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA)
applicable to accidents that occurred during the year 2014,
the notional monthly income is required to be taken at
₹7,500/-.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
36. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of
the accident. In view of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,
the claimants are entitled to an addition of 40% towards
future prospects. Further, having regard to the fact that
there are seven dependants, 1/5th of the income is
required to be deducted towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased. The appropriate multiplier
applicable to the age of the deceased is '16'. Accordingly,
the loss of dependency is reassessed as follows:
Monthly income: ₹7,500/-
Addition towards future prospects at 40%: ₹3,000/-
Total monthly income: ₹10,500/-
Annual income: ₹10,500 × 12 = ₹1,26,000/-
After deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses and
applying the multiplier of 16:
₹10,500 × 12 × 16 × 4/5 = ₹16,12,800/-
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
37. In addition to the aforesaid compensation, the
claimants are entitled to ₹16,500/- towards loss of estate
and ₹16,500/- towards funeral expenses.
38. Further, in view of the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (supra), together with
the subsequent decisions governing consortium, claimant
No.1, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to
₹44,000/- towards spousal consortium. Claimant Nos.2 to
5, being the children of the deceased, are entitled to
₹44,000/- each towards parental consortium. Similarly,
claimant Nos.6 and 7, being the parents of the deceased,
are entitled to ₹44,000/- each towards filial consortium.
The aforesaid amounts include 10% enhancement towards
the permissible escalation.
39. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the
claimants is reassessed as under:
Heads of compensation Amount
Loss of dependency ₹16,12,800/-
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
Spousal consortium ₹44,000/-
Parental consortium (claimant Nos.2 to 5) ₹1,76,000/-
Filial consortium (claimant Nos.6 and 7) ₹88,000/-
Loss of estate ₹16,500/-
Funeral expenses ₹16,500/-
Total ₹19,53,800/-
40. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. Having
regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgment
of this Court in Ms. Joyeeta Bose and Others v.
Venkateshan V. and Others (supra), this Court is of the
opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal
requires modification. Accordingly, the rate of interest is
reduced from 9% to 6% per annum.
41. Insofar as M.F.A. Crob. No.100105/2022 is
concerned, though the claimants have contended that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, on
perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is evident
that the Tribunal had awarded 50% of the income towards
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
future prospects, which is contrary to the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case
(supra). Further, under the head of loss of love and
affection, the Tribunal had awarded ₹1,00,000/- each to
claimant Nos.2 to 5, which is on the higher side. Similarly,
the amount of ₹50,000/- each awarded to claimant Nos.6
and 7 under the said head is also excessive. Likewise, the
Tribunal had awarded ₹25,000/- each towards loss of
estate and funeral expenses, which also requires
modification in accordance with the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
42. Therefore, though the claimants have sought
enhancement of compensation, upon reassessment of the
compensation under the various heads in accordance with
the settled principles of law, this Court finds that the
claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
₹19,53,800/- only. Consequently, the cross-objection filed
by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation
does not merit consideration and is liable to be dismissed.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
43. In view of the foregoing discussion and the
findings recorded on the points for consideration, the
points are answered accordingly. Hence, this Court
proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER
a. M.F.A. No.102312/2016 filed by the Insurance
Company is allowed in part . M.F.A. Crob.
No.100105/2022 filed by the claimants is
dismissed .
b. The judgment and award dated 18.04.2016
passed by the learned V Additional District and
Sessions Judge and VI Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, in M.V.C. No.2348/2014,
is hereby modified.
c. The compensation payable to the claimants
shall stand modified in terms of the calculation
made hereinabove. And claimants are entitled for
total compensation of Rs.19,53,800/- only.
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17054
MFA No. 102312 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100105 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020107262016
d. The compensation shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition
till realization.
e. The Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation amount, together with interest
thereon, after deducting the amount, if any,
already deposited before the Tribunal, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment.
f. The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court
shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal
for disbursement in accordance with law.
g. Any excess amount deposited by insurance
company, it is ordered to return the said excess
amount to the insurance company.
h. Draw the modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
AC
CT-CMU/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44