THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., vs PUJAR PREMAVVA D/O.PAKKAERAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100404 OF 2021
(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
ND
2 FLOOR, JP AND DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE,
NO.69, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-500052
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PUJAR PREMAVVA D/O. PAKKERAPPA
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
2. POOJAR HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. PREMAVVA
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
3.
PUJAR PAKKERAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED. ABOUT 69 YEARS,
4. SMT. MARIYAMMA W/O. PUJAR PAKKERAPPA
AGED. ABOUT 63 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by K M
SOMASHEKAR
Date:
2026.10.17
16:36:48
+0530
K M
SOMASHEKAR
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
ALL ARE R/O. ITTIGUDI VILLAGE,
HARAPANHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583213
5. SRI. PARASHARAM @ PRASHANTH S/O. MADAGAPPA
AGED. ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. NEELAGUNDA VILLAGE,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583213.
6. SRI. GONIBASAVARAJA S/O. MADAGAPPA
AGED. ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEELAGUNDA VILLAGE,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583213
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADV. FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
R1, R2, AND R4 ARE THE LR’S OF DECEASED R3.
NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR
THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06.02.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT
IX, AT HARAPANAHALLI IN MVC NO. 352/2018, WITH COST IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING FOR ADMISSION, ON THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.02.2021
in MVC No.352/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
Motor Accident Claim s Tribunal-IX, Harapanahalli (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), Insurance Company has
preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’), seeking to set aside the
same.
2. MVC No.352/2018 was filed under Section 166 of
the M.V. Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact of
accident and involvement of an auto-rickshaw bearing
registration No.KA-17/C-8300 in the said accident. Further,
there is also no dispute with regard to the fact that deceased
Kiran was travelling in the said vehicle at the time of the
accident and had sustained injuries and succumbed to the
injuries.
3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, fastened the liability on the Insurance
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
Company and awarded compensation to the legal heirs of the
deceased as follows:
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.12,96,000/-
2. Towards loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
3. Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
4. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
5. Love and affection towards his parents Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.13,71,000/-
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
contended that as stated in the FIR and chargesheet, driver of
the auto-rickshaw had no driving license and the driver had
violated conditions of the permit. In spite of issuance of notice
under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC, the owner and driver of the
auto-rickshaw failed to produce driving license. RTO,
Davanagere was examined as RW4, who corroborated the
above said fact and also deposed that the auto-rickshaw had
permit to run the same within 5 km radius of Harapanahalli
Town Panchayat. But he drove the same on Ittigudi-
Neelagunda road at Ittigudi village and hence, he has violated
the conditions of permit. Further, the deceased was a bachelor
and hence towards his personal expenses 50% of his income
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
has to be deducted and the claimants are not entitled for
compensation under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that
there is no violation of permit condition and compensation
awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the available materials.
7. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company, FIR-Ex.P1 and chargesheet-Ex.P7 depict
that a criminal case has been filed under Section 3(1), 181, 5
and 180 of the M.V. Act against the driver as well as owner of
the auto-rickshaw. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company
has issued notice to the owner and driver of the auto-rickshaw
on 30.09.2019, calling upon them to produce driving license of
the driver of the auto-rickshaw, but the same was not produced
by the concerned.
8. At this point, it is relevant to refer Ex. R10-permit,
as per which, the vehicle had permit to ply within 5 km radius
of Harapanahalli Town Panchayat. FIR as well as charge sheet
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
clearly demonstrate that the accident had occurred on Ittigudi-
Neelagunda road at Ittigudi village. Hence, it is clear that there
is violation of permit condition.
9. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Nagendra v. The
1
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein, taking into
consideration both the victim’s right to receive just
compensation and the interests of the insurance company, the
Hon’ble Apex Court considered the application of the principle
of ‘pay and recover’ to be appropriate in a case involving
deviation from the prescribed route under the permit.
Therefore, by placing reliance on the principles laid down in K.
Nagendra (supra), insurer is directed to pay compensation
along with interest to the claimant, with a stipulation that
insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner.
10. With regard to the contention of the Insurance
Company that compensation awarded is exorbitant, the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the
judgment in the case of Ranjana Prakash and others v. The
1
2025 INSC 1270: 2025 SCC Online SC 2297
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
2
Divisional Manager and another and argued that if this
Court comes to a conclusion that compensation awarded has to
be enhanced, in view of the above judgment, High Court cannot
obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by
owner/insurer for reducing the compensation nor can it reduce
the compensation in an appeal by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation.
11. It is profitable to refer to the case of Oriental
3
Insurance Company Limited v. Sardar Singh and others ,
wherein Insurance Company took up a defence that without
there being cross-appeal or cross-objection, the amount has
been enhanced by the High Court, which is contrary to the law
laid down in Ranjana Prakash (supra) . The Hon’ble Apex
Court, considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
did not interfere with the impugned order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court by observing that, “payment is under a
beneficial legislation and thus, the Court should not test it from
a purely technical point of view but rather, from a human angle
2
2012 AIR SCW 848 : (2011) 8 SCALE 240
3
SLP (C) No.14319/2020
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
for determining the quantum of compensation which ultimately,
the Court grants to the family of the victim”.
12. In Surekha W/o.Rajendra Nakhate and others
4
the Hon’ble
v. Santosh S/o.Namdeo Jadhav and others ,
Apex Court held that the Court should not take hyper-technical
approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the
affected person or the claimants and modified the order of
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad.
13. Moreover, the power of the Appellate Court under
Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC is discretionary and it enables the
Appellate Court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of
justice. The Court should not refuse to exercise that discretion
on mere technicalities. For the above discussed reasons, I
opine that this Court has to consider whether the Tribunal has
granted just compensation.
14. The Tribunal has fixed notional income of the
th
deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month and deducted 1/4 of the
4
(2021) 16 SCC 467
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
same towards his personal expenses. Admittedly, the deceased
was bachelor and hence 50% of his income has to be deducted
towards his personal expenses. Accident has occurred in the
year 2017 and hence, as per the notional income chart issued
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional
income for the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. As per the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
5
Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi towards future prospectus
40% of the notional income has to be added after deducting
50% of the same, which comes to Rs.7,125/-. After applying
multiplier ‘18’ based on his age, it comes to Rs.15,49,800/-
(Rs.7,125 x 12 x 18) under the head of ‘loss of dependency’.
15. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued
that compensation awarded under the other heads i.e., loss of
estate, funeral expenses, consortium are just and reasonable
but the claimants are not entitled for compensation under the
head of loss of love and affection.
5
2017 (16) SCC 680
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
16. It is important to note here that compensation
under the head of loss of love and affection is subsumed within
the head of ‘loss of consortium’. Hence, the Tribunal has erred
in awarding compensation under the head of ‘loss of love and
affection’ when it has already awarded compensation under the
head of ‘loss of consortium’. Before deciding the award under
the head of ‘loss of consortium’, it is relevant to note here that
though claimants have shown maternal grandparents and
unmarried brother as dependants, no materials have been
placed on record to prove the same. However, keeping intact
apportionment ordered by the Tribunal, I hold that mother
(claimant No.1) alone is entitled for compensation under the
head ‘loss of consortium’. As per judgment in Pranay Sethi
(noted supra) , compensation under the heads of consortium,
funeral expenses and loss of estate shall carry 10% escalation
for every three years.
17. In view of the above discussions, the claimants are
entitled for the reassessed compensation as follows:
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
Head Amount in
Rs.
Loss of dependency 15,49,800/-
Loss of consortium 48,400/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Loss of estate 18,150/-
Total 16,34,500/-
18. In view of the above discussion, this court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 06.02.2021 in MVC
No.352/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Harapanahalli is
modified by enhancing compensation amount from
Rs.13,71,000/- to Rs. 16,34,500/-, with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation.
(iii) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced
compensation, together with accrued interest, before
the jurisdictional Tribunal within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17333
MFA No. 100404 of 2021
CNR: KAHC020163662021
this judgment and recover the same from Respondent
No.6 herein-the owner of the vehicle bearing KA-
17/C-8300.
(iv) The statutory amount in deposit, if any, made by the
Insurance Company is ordered to be transmitted to
the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(v) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:CNB
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31