ARUN S/O HAJAVVA MADAR vs RAVI S/O CHANNAPPA KOTI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF JULY 2026
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102562 OF 2025 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
ARUN S/O. HAJAVVA MADAR
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. SIDDAPUR VILLAGE,
TAL: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587117.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVI S/O. CHANNAPPA KOTI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: VEHICLE OWNER,
R/O. TOLAMATTI, TAL: BILGI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MELLIGERI COMPLEX,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
---
Digitally
signed by
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.138/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VII BILAGI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V.Act’) by
dissatisfied claimant challenging the judgment and award
dated 07.12.2021 in M.V.C.138/2016 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Bilagi (in short, ‘the
Tribunal’).
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks,
as they were before Tribunal for sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. The case of claimant before Tribunal in nutshell
is that claimant is the son of deceased Hajavva. On
27.07.2015 at about 13.29 hours on Bilagi-Galagali road,
near Sonna cross, when Hajavva was pillion rider of
motorcycle bearing No.KA-29/Y-3703 being rode by
respondent No.1; respondent No.1 rode it rashly and
negligently and she-buffalo was coming on the road side
and rider of the motorcycle suddenly took the motorcycle
on left side and she-buffalo dashed against the pillion rider
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
Hajavva, as a result of which, she sustained grievous
injuries and died while taking treatment. The deceased
was aged 35 years at the time of accident. Claimant is the
only minor son of the deceased. At the time of the
accident, he was aged about 13 years.
4. After service of notice, respondent No.2-
insurance Company has filed objection statement and
taken all available defences to the insurer.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has
framed the issues. After framing of issues, recording of
evidence and hearing arguments, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that claimant is entitled for the compensation
totally amounting to ₹18,71,517/- under following heads:
Towards loss of Dependency Rs.10,75,200=00
Towards Medical expenses Rs.7,36,317=00
Towards Loss of Love and Affection Rs.30,000=00
Towards Loss of Estate Rs.15,000=00
Towards Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000=00
Total Rs.18,71,517=00
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant is
before this Court.
7. Heard arguments of both sides.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant – Sri Harish
S. Maigur would submit that deceased was the home
maker and she is the only person looking after the
claimant who was minor at the time of accident. Hence,
the income of deceased ought to have been taken at
₹30,000/- per month by relying on the recent judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Shishupal @ Shish Ram & Others
v. Surjeet & Others reported in (2026) INSC 634 .
However, the Tribunal has not taken the income of the
deceased properly. Further relying upon Sarla Verma and
's cited as
others v Delhi Transport Corp. & Another
Civil Appeal No. 3483/2008 case, learned counsel for
rd
appellant would submit that 1/3 of the income of
deceased is to be deducted towards her personal expenses
and prayed for modification of the award. The Tribunal has
rd
rightly taken deduction of 1/3 . However, income of the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
deceased was not taken appropriately. The relevant
multiplier to be applicable is not the age of deceased, but
the age of claimant. Hence, prayed for modification.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2–Insurer,
Sri N. R. Kuppelur, would submit that, this is a benevolent
legislation, and the aim and object of the legislation is to
award just and reasonable compensation and not more
than that. Furthermore, the case of claimant is that the
deceased was doing weaving work and earning an income
and was not a mere homemaker. Therefore, the income of
the deceased is to be taken as per the chart prepared by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for
Lok Adalat. Hence, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires no
interference. He would further submit that the claimant is
the only dependent of the deceased, and therefore 50% of
the income of the deceased ought to have been deducted
towards her personal and living expenses, and not one-
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
third as deducted by the Tribunal. Hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides and
on perusal of the appeal papers, the following point arises
for consideration:
“Whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation?”
11. The finding is in affirmative for the following:
REASONS
12. The factum of the accident and the death of the
claimant's mother in the said accident are not in dispute.
The accident occurred on 27.07.2015 at about 13.29 hours
on Bilagi-Galagali road is also not in dispute. She took
treatment up to 01.09.2015 and succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the road traffic accident. Considering the
medical bills produced by the claimant, Tribunal has
awarded ₹7,36,317/- under head ‘medical expenses’ ,
which requires no interference.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under
head ‘loss of estate’ at ₹15,000/- each. However, relying
upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
1
Ram & Others 10% + 10% escalation is required to be
granted under the conventional heads. Accordingly, the
claimant is entitled to ₹18,150/- (₹15,000 + 10% + 10%)
each under the heads of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral
expenses’. Further the claimant is entitled for
compensation towards ‘loss of parental consortium’
instead of loss towards love and affection at ₹40,000 x
10% + 10% = ₹48,400/-.
14. the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment
of case (cited supra), at paragraph Nos.10,
Shishupal’s
12, 13 and 20 held as under:
“10. In our view, it is ironic to describe a
homemaker as dependant on earning members,
when, in reality the household's functioning depends
substantially on the homemaker. The earning
members are in fact solely dependent on the
1
(2018) 18 SCC 130
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
homemaker but alas, this reality does not receive
the acknowledgment it deserves. Efforts have been
made across fields to some success but yet
undeniably the road is still long.
“12. It must also be observed that this economic
shift of valuing a homemaker's efforts is not limited
only to monetary aspects. There has been a shift in
sensibilities - a married woman who takes care of
the house is no longer called a housewife and has
now been elevated to the deserved status of
homemaker in recognition of the multitudes of
facets that her presence in the home covers. The
term 'housewife' has been present for centuries with
its earliest use being recorded in the year 12255
whereas the word 'homemaker' is relatively newer,
being traced back to somewhere in the 1860s. It
may be true that Judiciary has made a conscious
effort to shift its use to the latter term but in
common use the stereotypical earlier term still
continues with a ratio of 4:1. Although this shift in
terminology has been seen in earlier judgments, we
would like to note that this Court in its recent
handbook on combating gender stereotypes stated
that the use of the term 'housewife' would be
incorrect and instead the word 'homemaker' should
be used. In the same book, it has also been noted
as follows:
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
Stereotype Reality
Women who do not work
outside the home do not
contribute to the
household or contribute
very little in comparison
to their husbands.
Women who are homemakers
perform unpaid domestic
labour (such as cooking,
cleaning, washing, household
management and accounts)
and care work (such as
caring for the elderly and for
children, helping children
with their homework and
extracurriculars). The unpaid
labour performed by women
not only contributes to
household's quality of life but
also results in monetary
savings. Women who are
homemakers contribute to
the household to an equal (or
greater) extent.
13. xxxxxx
“On the emotional and psychological plane,
the inherent ability of a homemaker to juggle
multiple aspects whether it is meals, properly ironed
clothes, stocking up supplies, caring for the elderly
in the house, ensuring that the children stay on top
of their schoolwork and so many more things that
enabled, to use a somewhat stereotypical
expression, the 'men of the house', to have their
undivided focus on earning a good living. They
provide a sense of insulation from the pressures of
the outside world, a bubble in which everything is
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
taken care of and all that is needed for the people
therein, is to relax and rejuvenate preparing
themselves for what the next day might bring. In
the majority of households, this is taken to be
'normal' but the truth is that those who do not have
this luxury, truly understand what is missing in their
lives. The family members in households where the
homemaker is absent be it for whatever reason, are
often required to come together and each individual
therein will do a part of the work that would
otherwise fall to the absent individual who would, in
fact do it with a smile on their face.”
“20. It is in these circumstances, that we
deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this
Court is concerned with or a case involving the
death of a homemaker, in order to overcome the
inherent disadvantage accrued against the
homemaker on a calculation of compensation on the
basis of conservatively computed notional income
and while being acutely aware of the dictum in
Pranay Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium
as also the disposition towards uniformity, that for
the three major heads (the homemaker's
contribution towards smooth functioning of the
household, the loss of maternal support for children
and loss of spousal support/the support and care of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
their child who is an adult, for the parents of the
deceased) discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, a
composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under
the head of 'loss of domestic care', provided that all
three of these heads are met in the given case. This
determination shall be revised by 10%,
cumulatively, every three years. It may be clearly
stated that this amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e., loss of
domestic care is to be taken as a 'stand-in' (basic
minimum monthly income) for monthly income in
those cases where the homemaker does not have
an input into the house, in strictly conventional,
monetary terms. In those cases where the
homemaker is part of the workforce, the component
of loss of domestic care shall be in addition to the
monthly income as may be proved before the
Tribunal/Courts.”
15. In the said case, relying upon its earlier
judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, while
computing compensation, there shall be an additional head
‘loss of domestic care’ in the case of the death of
homemaker, i.e., the mother.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
16. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that compensation payable to the claimant as per the
following tabular formula:
Compensation Heads As per law
Loss of domestic
30,000
care/Monthly Income
Yearly Income 3,60,000
Future Prospects (Age-35 40% of 3,60,000=1,44,000/-
years)
3,60,000+1,44,000
=5,04,000
Multiplier (16) 5,04,000 X 16=80,64,000/-
1/4 X 80,64,000
Deduction (1/4)
=20,16,000/-
60,48,000/-
Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 4=1,93,600
Loss of Estate 18,150
Funeral Expenses 18,150
Total 62,77,900/-
17. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the present case also, the deceased
left behind her minor son as the sole dependent. She was
a homemaker and was looking after the claimant in all
respects. The deceased was the only person to look after
the minor child aged about 13 years. Therefore, the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
compensation under the head ‘ loss of domestic care’ is to
be awarded.
18. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble apex court
cited supra, the notional income of the deceased is taken
at ₹30,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 35 years.
Relying upon the judgment in National Insurance
2
Company Vs. Pranaya Sethi , 40% is to be added
towards future prospects.
19. In the judgment of Hon’ble apex court at Sarla
Verma’s case cited supra, at para No.14 held as follows:
“14. Though in some cases the deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses is
calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok
Chandra's case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general
practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having
considered several subsequent decisions of this
court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased should be one-third
rd
(1/3 ) where the number of dependent family
th
members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4 ) where the
2
AIR 2017 SC 5157
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of the
dependent family members exceed six.”
20. Relying on judgment of Hon’ble apex court at
Saral varma’s case cited supra, as deceased is married
and left behind her sole child, out of the income of
deceased, one-third is to be deducted towards her
personal and living expenses. The relevant multiplier to be
adopted is 16 as per Sarla Verma’s case cited supra.
21. Hence, the compensation towards ‘loss of
domestic care’ would be ₹53,76,000/- as calculated in the
table below:
Loss of domestic
30,000
care/Monthly Income
Yearly Income 3,60,000
Add: Future Prospects (Age- 40% of 3,60,000=1,44,000/-
35 years)
3,60,000+1,44,000
=5,04,000
Multiplier (16) 5,04,000 X 16=80,64,000/-
1/3 X 80,64,000
Deduction (1/4)
=26,88,000/-
53,76,000/- (80,64,000 –
Loss of Dependency
26,88,000)
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
22. Hence, the claimant in all is entitled for total
compensation as under:
Compensation Heads Amount awarded( ₹)
Loss of Dependency 53,76,000.00
Medical Expenses 7,36,317.00
Loss of Consortium
48,400.00
( ₹40000x10%x10%)
Loss of Estate
18,150.00
( ₹15000x10%x10%)
Funeral Expenses
18,150.00
( ₹15000x10%x10%)
61,97,017/-
Total
23. Thus, the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of ₹43,25,500/- (₹61,97,017 –
₹18,71,517) in addition to the compensation awarded by
Tribunal.
24. Accordingly , this court passes the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part .
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
ii. Judgment and award dated 07.12.2021 passed
in MVC No.138/2016 on the file of MACT-VII,
Bilagi, is modified by granting additional
compensation of ₹43,25,500 /- to the claimant,
along with compensation already granted by
the Tribunal.
iii. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. However, the claimant is not
entitled for interest on the enhanced
compensation for delayed period of 1076 days
as per the order of this Court dated
24.06.2026.
iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount along with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9070
MFA No. 102562 of 2025
HC-KAR
v. Apportionment, Disbursement and deposit shall
be as per the award of Tribunal.
vi. No order as to costs.
vii. Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SSP:Para 1 to 8
gab:Para 9 to end
CT:VH
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22