SRI HAJARATALI HANIFSAB JALAGAR ALIAS JHARE vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104119 OF 2025 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HAJARATALI HANIFSAB JALAGAR ALIAS JHARE
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: RAMDURG NOW AT MUNAVALLI
TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN: 591110.
2. SRI. SHAMIRAHMAD HAJARATSAB JHARE
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN: 591110.
3. SRI. JAMIL HAJARATALI JHARE,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN: 591110
4. SRI. SHAKIL HAJARATALI JHARE,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: MUNAVALLI,
TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN: 591110.
5. KUMARI SABA D/O. HAJARATSAB JHARE,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
PIN: 591110.
6. KUMARI JEBA D/O. HAJARATSAB JHARE,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN: 591110.
7. KUMAR AKHIL HAJARATSAB JHARE,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
PIN: 591110.
SINCE APPELLANT NO. 4 TO 7 ARE MINORS
AND R/BY THEIR M/G AND NATURAL FATHER
APPELLANT NO.1
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HANMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NWKRTC DIVISION OFFICE BELAGAVI
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BIALHONGAL, IN MVC NO.121/2024
DATED 04.10.2024, IN THE INTEREST 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
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.10.2024
in MVC No.121/2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
1
Additional MACT, Bailhognal , the petitioners before the
Tribunal filed this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
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 16.12.2023 at about
2.10 pm Smt. Shamshad Hajaratali Jhare went to Bailhongal to
visit her son and when she was waiting for bus at Bailhongal
Bus Stand to return to her native place Munavalli, at that time,
2
a NWKRTC Bus bearing No.KA.22/F-1359 came and she
boarded the said bus. The conductor of said bus told her that
the bus was not going to Munavalli and told to get down from
the bus. The conductor of said bus whistled, and the driver of
bus has stopped the bus. While she was alighting from the bus,
the driver did not give attention towards lady and suddenly
1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
2
For short, ‘the bus’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
drove the bus in a high speed. By the reckless act of driver, she
fell down from the bus. Due to the said impact, Shamashad has
sustained grievous injuries to her head, right leg and other
multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, she was
taken to the hospital. But she succumbed to the injuries on 21-
12-2023 during the treatment at KLE Hospital, Belagavi.
4. The petitioners contended that, prior to the accident, the
deceased was hale and healthy and was doing coolie work and
earning Rs.40,000/- per month and maintaining her family
members. Due to her untimely demise, the petitioners who are
claiming to be her husband, sons and daughters have lost their
only bread earning member in the family, love and affection
and, they are facing difficulties. The petitioners have spent
huge amount towards treatment of the deceased and incurred
expenses for transportation of dead body and in performing her
last rites. Hence, the petitioners have filed petition claiming
compensation before the Tribunal.
5. On filing of the petition, notice has been issued to the
respondent. The respondent/Corporation appeared through his
counsel and filed objections denying the petition averments
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
with regard to the age, income and occupation of the deceased
and also injuries sustained, treatment taken, medical expenses
and the manner of accident and further contended that the
claim of the compensation is exorbitant, excessive and arbitrary
one.
6. It is further contended that the driver of the bus started
the bus after the whistle by the conductor and moved the bus
in a moderate speed by observing all the traffic rules and
regulations. But the deceased without intimating the conductor
or driver of the bus, she herself tried to get down from the bus
and sustained grievous injuries. There is no any negligence on
the part of the driver of the bus. It is further contended that,
the petitioners in order to claim compensation colluding with
police have filed the false complaint. Hence, prayed for
dismissing the claim petition.
7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner No.1 himself
examined as PW1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P.1 to
P13. On behalf of respondent, the driver of the bus examined
as RW1, but no documents got marked.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
8. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal allowed the claim
petition of the petitioners in part and awarded compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Funeral and transportation 16,500/-
expenses
2 Loss of consortium 3,08,000/-
3 Loss of dependency 18,40,800/-
4 Loss of estate 16,500/-
5 Medical expenses 1,33,789/-
TOTAL 23,15,589/-
The Tribunal further directed the respondent/Corporation to
deposit the compensation amount along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization
within 30 days from the date of the order.
9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the
petitioners preferred this appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners a rgued that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of
Rs.23,15,589/- is inadequate. Further argued that the
deceased died at the age of 48, but the Tribunal not awarded
future prospects in view of the findings of the Hon’ble Apex
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
3
Sethi . Further it is argued that the petitioner was doing milk
vending business and also working as a shepherd and thereby
earning and maintaining her family, but the Tribunal wrongly
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.14,750/- per
month.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners requested
the Court to consider the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Shishupal @ Shish Ram and Others v. Surjeet and
4
Others , and to take the income of the deceased at
Rs.30,000/- per month and also prays for enhancement of the
compensation under conventional heads.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent/Corporation argued that as per the medical
documents produced by the petitioners, the age of the
deceased is mentioned as 55 years, but the Tribunal wrongly
considered the age of the deceased at 48 years. Further it is
argued that the income of the deceased assessed by the
3
(2017) 16 SCC 680
4
2026 INSC 634
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
Tribunal is proper and adequate and does not call for
interference. Moreover, the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the
majors who are not depending on the income of the deceased
for their survival. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the
petition.
13. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:
(i) Whether the petitioners prove that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?
(ii) What order?
14. 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:
15. Regarding Point No.(i): It is not in dispute that
the deceased met with an accident on 16.12.2023 at 02:10
p.m. and accident caused by the bus and death of Shamshad
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
during the course of treatment at KLE Hospital, Belagavi. The
deceased died leaving behind her husband/petitioner No.1 and
children/petitioners No.2 to 7.
16. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that the
deceased having two buffalos and six sheep, was doing milk
vending business. The accident occurred on 16.12.2023 and
the deceased died on 21.12.2023 at KLE Hospital, Belagavi.
The postmortem report marked as Ex.P8 reflects that the age
of the deceased was 48 years at the time of accident. Except
postmortem report, no other material document produced
before the Court to prove the age of the deceased.
17. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/Corporation, the age of the deceased mentioned in
the medical bills to be taken into consideration.
18. This Court is of the opinion that the medical bills are
produced to show that the medicine has been purchased by
making payment. The bills should be taken into consideration
only to see how much amount the petitioners have spent
towards the medical expenses of the deceased.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
19. Since, there is no other document to prove the age
of the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal
rightly considered the age of the deceased on looking into the
recitals in the postmortem report as “48” years. Therefore, in
view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma
5
and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ,
the applicable multiplier would be “13”.
20. Regarding the question of income is concerned; the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Shishupal’s case at paragraph No.20
has held as under:
“Loss Of Domestic Care: An Additional Head:
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
5
2009 ACJ 1298
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
towards smooth functioning of the household, the
loss of maternal support for children and loss of
spousal support/the support and care of 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.”
21. In this case, the deceased left behind her husband
and six children and she was taking care of her family and
supported her husband to maintain the family. The petitioners
No.2 to 7 are the students, they are pursuing their education
and they were fully depending on their parents for their
livelihood and education. The deceased was not only engaged
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
in domestic work but was also doing other work, through which
she used to earn an income to support and maintain her family.
The deceased died at the age of 48 years. This Court is of the
opinion that, it is just and reasonable to take the income of the
deceased by following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Shishupal’s case. Accordingly, the income of the
homemaker or the income of the deceased is to be taken at
Rs.30,000/- per month.
22. In view of the finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi’s case, 25% of the income of the deceased has
th
to be added towards the future prospects and 1/5 of the
income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal
living expenses.
Rs.30,000/- + 25% = Rs.37,500/-
th
Rs.37,500/- - 1/5 = Rs.30,000/-
Rs.30,000/- X 12 X 13 = Rs.46,80,000/-
23. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.46,80,000/- under the head of “loss of
dependency”.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
24. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of
Rs.3,08,000/- under the head of “loss of consortium” to the
petitioners No.1 to 7, Rs.16,500/- each under the heads of
“loss of estate” and “funeral expenses” and also by considering
the material available on record, awarded compensation of
Rs.1,33,789/- under the head of “medical expenses” incurred
by the petitioners, which does not call for interference by this
Court.
25. In all compensation is awarded under the following
heads:
Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency 46,80,000/-
2 Loss of consortium 3,08,000/-
3 Loss of estate 16,500/-
4 Funeral expenses 16,500/-
5 Medical expenses 1,33,789/-
TOTAL 51,54,789/-
26. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.51,54,789/- as against Rs.23,15,589/-
awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered
partly in the affirmative.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
27. Regarding point No.(ii) : In view of the findings
on point No.(i), this proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioners
entitled to receive compensation of
Rs.51,54,789/- as against Rs.23,15,589/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
payment, excluding the period of delay of
220 days in filing the appeal, as per the
order dated 14.08.2026.
(iv) Respondent/Corporation shall deposit
enhanced compensation with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Draw modified award accordingly.
(vi) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records
forthwith.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16425
MFA No. 104119 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020177562025
(vii) In view of disposal of this appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same are accordingly
disposed of.
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026