M/S UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs SMT NANDINI P W/O LATE SAI BABA E.N. ALIAS SAI BABU

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104086 OF 2025 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

M/S UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
LIMITED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
MAIN ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR,
BALLARI- 583101
(POLICY NO.0728003122P106812123
VALID FROM 15-10-2022 TO 14-10-2023
INSURED AT BRANCH OFFICE,
SCORPIO HOUSE NO.132
WHEELERS ROAD (ABOVE MANDOVI MOTORS)
COX TOWN BENGALURU- 560052
BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. NANDINI P.
W/O. LATE SAI BABA E.N. ALIAS SAI BABU
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
(WIFE OF THE DECEASED-
SAI BABA E.N. ALISA SAI BABU)
CHIKKABYALADAKERE VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT W.N.5,
GURRARAHATTI,
BENGALURU ROAD, BALLARI- 583101.

2. MINOR REVATHI E.S.
D/O E.S LATE SIA BABA E.N.ALIAS SAI BABU,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
CHIKKABYALADAKERE VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT W.NO.5
GURRARAHATTI BENGALURU ROAD,
BALLARI- 593101,
(THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SINCE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. NANDINI P WIFE OF LATE
SAI BABA E.N. ALIAS SAI BABU

3. SMT. ANJINAMMA
W/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
(MOTHER OF THE DECEASED
SAI BABA E.N. ALIAS SAI BABU)
CHIKKABYALADAKERE VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT W.NO.5
GURRARAHATTI BENGALURU ROAD,
BALLARI- 593101.

4. SRI. K. RAMESH S/O. KARIYAPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE CAR
BEARING REG NO.KA-03/MX-4330,
R/O. BALENAHALLI KARPURAKATTE,
HOSADURGA, TALUK- 577527
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

5. SRI. SHRUTHI BHASKARAN
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE CAR
BEARING REG NO.KA-03/MX-4330,
R/O.NO.205, KEMPTON KOURT, NO.317,
DUO MARVEL LAYOUT
ANANTHAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU- 560064.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GURUKUMAR.V.A. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1;
NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS SERVED)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR
THE PARTIES AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.02.2025 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL V AND
I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BALLARI IN M.V.C.NO.476/2023
BY EXONERATING THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY FROM
LIABILITY AND REDUCING THE COMPENSATION AS STATED IN THE
GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.02.2025
in MVC No.476/2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claim
1
Tribunal No.V and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari , the
appellant being the respondent No.3/Insurance Company
before the Tribunal filed this appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2023 at
about 5.00 p.m., when Sai Baba @ Sai Babu was returning
from Kanchipura village towards Chikkabyaladakere village on

1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


his Suzuki Access 125 scooter bearing registration No. KA-
2
16/ES-5913 at that time, the respondent No.1, the driver of
3
the car bearing registration No.KA-03/MX-4330 drove the car
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter
near Byadarahalli Gate on Kittadhal-Chikkabsyaladakere Road
and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, Sai Babu
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4. The petitioners No.1 to 3 who are the wife, minor
daughter and mother of the deceased respectively, submitted
that prior to the accident the deceased worked in the factory at
‘Prakash Sponge Iron and Power Private Limited’, drawing a
salary of Rs.35,699/- per month and maintaining his family.
The petitioners were dependent on his earnings and they have
spent huge amount towards funeral expenses. Accordingly,
being the legal representatives of the deceased, the petitioners
have filed petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation.

2
For short, ‘the scooter’
3
For short, ‘the car’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025



5. After filing of the petition, notices have been issued
to the respondents. They have appeared through their counsel
and filed their objections separately.

6. Respondent No.1/driver contended that at the time
of accident, he was holding a valid and effective driving license,
insurance policy was valid and denied the remaining petition
averments. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.

7. Respondent No.2/owner contended that she had
sold the vehicle to Mathai Mathew on 06.08.2015, denied the
remaining petition averments and prayed for dismissal of the
claim petition.

8. Respondent No.3 contended that the policy was in
force at the time of the accident and that the petition was bad
for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the scooter; the
deceased was not having a valid driving license and without
wearing the helmet he rode the scooter in a rash and negligent
manner and thereby violated traffic rules and dashed against
the car; the accident occurred on the contributory negligence
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


on the part of the deceased; respondent No.1 had no valid and
effective driving license and that the car’s fitness certificate was
not valid. Accordingly, respondent No.3 prayed for dismissal of
the claim petition.

9. Before the Tribunal, petitioner No.1 herself
examined as PW1 and one witness has been examined as PW2
and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.24. On the other
hand, the respondents have not adduced any evidence,
however produced the copy of policy and marked as Ex.R1 with
consent.

10. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation under the
following heads:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Loss of dependency 48,61,360/-
2 Loss of estate 15,000/-
3 Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
Total Rs.50,11,360/-


11. The Tribunal further held that the respondents No.1
to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


petitioners and directed the respondent No.3/Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount within three
months from the date of the order with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

12. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award,
the respondent No.3 being the Insurance Company of the car
preferred this appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued
that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of
accident and if the deceased was wearing the helmet, the head
injury could have been avoided and the helmet would have
protected his head. The deceased born on 30.01.1974 and the
accident occurred on 09.05.2023, but the Tribunal applied the
multiplier as “13”, which is erroneous. Further argued that,
while considering the income of the deceased, the Tribunal did
not deducted the conveyance allowance of Rs.5,398/-, income
tax and professional tax. The Tribunal committed error in
taking future prospectus at 30%, though the petitioner was an
employee in a factory, which is a private firm. Accordingly,
prayed for reduction of compensation by allowing the appeal.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025



14. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
documents produced by the petitioners indicate the date of
birth of the deceased which can be considered and the
conveyance allowance has been provided by the company
which cannot be deducted.

15. In support of his contention, he drawn the attention
of the Court, to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
4
Court in Vishakha and Others v. Shree Pal and Another .
The deceased was a permanent employee and his appointment
letter indicate the date of appointment and the date of
retirement date itself shows that he is a permanent employee.
So the Tribunal rightly added the future prospectus at 30% to
the income of the deceased. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.

16. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:

4
MAC APP. 412/2011 dated 03.01.2012
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025



(i) Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and
deserves to be modified?

(ii) What order?

17. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(ii): As per the final order, for the
following:

18. Regarding Point No.(i): The accident occurred on
09.05.2023 at 05:00 p.m., caused by the driver of the car. The
deceased died due to the accidental injuries. The legal
representatives of the deceased filed claim petition claiming
compensation.

19. According to the Insurance Company, if the rider of
the scooter wore the helmet at the time of accident, he could
have avoid the head injury. This Court is of the opinion that,
merely because the deceased was not wearing the helmet at
the time of accident, it does not mean that he would not get
the head injury. It is not appropriate to assume or presume the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


things. So, for not wearing the helmet, there is a separate
provision and it cannot be considered in the case where the
legal representatives of the deceased filed a petition claiming
compensation for the death of the deceased.

20. Another contention taken by the Insurance
Company that the Tribunal has not deducted professional tax,
income tax and conveyance allowance.

21. Ex.P7 is the document issued by the company
which indicates that the deceased was working and his basic
salary was Rs.2,32,104/- per annum and he was getting gross
salary of Rs.4,28,388/- per annum which includes HRA,
conveyance allowance, medical allowance and Leave Travel
Allowance. Accordingly, petitioners have produced the salary
slip of the deceased for the month of February, March and April
2023.

22. The accident occurred in the month of May 2023.
So, the last drawn salary of the deceased is to be taken into
consideration. The salary slip for the month of April-2023
indicates that the deceased drawn salary of Rs.35,699/- and
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


after deductions of Rs.200/- towards professional tax, net
salary was Rs.33,389/- per month.

23. According to the Insurance Company, conveyance
allowance to be deducted from the salary while assessing the
income of the deceased.

24. It is relevant to extract the observation of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Vishakha and Others (supra).

25. The relevant paragraphs No.13 and 14 reads as
under:
“ 13. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v.
Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co.(P) Ltd., (1977) 2
SCC 745, it was held that dearness allowance,
conveyance allowance and other allowances are to
be treated as part of the deceased’s income.
14. There is distinction between the
conveyance allowance and a traveling allowance.
Wherever a traveling allowance is paid to an
employee to perform his duties this may not be
considered as the deceased’s income, but where
conveyance allowance is paid apart from salary,
the same may or may not be spent while traveling
to the place of employment. Therefore, where
conveyance allowance is paid as part of the salary,
the same has to be taken into consideration for
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


computation of the loss of dependency. Deduction
towards the personal living expenses is otherwise
made to calculate the dependency.”

26. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the
opinion that, the income of the deceased at Rs.33,389/- per
month taken by the Tribunal while assessing the loss of
dependency is proper and correct. Therefore, the contention of
the Insurance Company that the conveyance allowance should
be deducted from the salary cannot be accepted.

27. Ex.P15 is the letter of appointment issued by the
company and it indicates that the deceased was appointed as
Way Bridge Operator and terms and conditions of employment
has been described in the said document.

28. The document marked at Ex.P17 indicates the date
of birth of the deceased as 30.01.1974. The accident occurred
in the year 2023. So at the time of accident, the deceased the
was aged 49 years. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport
5
Corporation and another , the applicable multiplier would be

5
2009 ACJ 1298
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


“13” , but the Tribunal applied the multiplier as “14”, which is
not correct.

29. The Insurance Company contended that the
deceased was not a permanent employee and he was not
having permanent job.

30. The document marked as Ex.P15 indicates that the
deceased was permanent employee in the company. Further,
PW2 also produced the relevant documents to prove the
employment of the deceased. In view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company
6
Limited v. Pranay Sethi , for the age group between 40-50
years, 30% of the income of the deceased is to be added
towards future prospects.

31. The deceased died leaving behind his wife, minor
daughter and the mother, in all three dependants. Hence, as
rd
per Pranay Sethi’s case, 1/3 of the income of the deceased
is to be deducted towards personal living expenses. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of
“loss of dependency” as under:

6
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


Rs.33,389/- + 30% = Rs.43,406/-
rd
Rs.43,406/- - 1/3 = Rs.28,937/-
Rs.28,937/- X 12 X 13 = Rs.45,14,172/-


32. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- each to the
petitioners under the head of “loss of consortium”. Further, in
Pranay Sethi’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the
amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium, is liable
to be enhanced by 10% escalation. Hence, the petitioners No.1
to 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- each under
the head of “loss of consortium”.

33. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of
Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of “loss of estate” and
“funeral expenses”, which does not call for interference. In all,
the compensation is awarded under the following heads:

Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency 45,14,172/-
2 Loss of consortium 1,32,000/-
3 Loss of estate 15,000/-
4 Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 46,76,172/-

Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025



34. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.46,76,172/- as against Rs.50,11,360/-
awarded by the Tribunal.

35. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered partly in the
affirmative.

36. Regarding point No.(ii) : In view of the findings
on point No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company
is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioners
are entitled to receive compensation of
Rs.46,76,172/- as against Rs.50,11,360/-
awarded by the Tribunal along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of payment.

(iii) Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17539
MFA No. 104086 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020185712025


petitioners. Further, the respondent No.3
being the Insurance Company shall deposit
the compensation with accrued interest
before the Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.

(iv) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to
be transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.

(v) Draw modified award accordingly.

(vi) In view of disposal of this appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same are accordingly
disposed of.

Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026



(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE


SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42