SMT NETRAVATHI vs VENU T S
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59388
MFA No. 8064 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010718352024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8064 / 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT NETRAVATHI
W/O LATE PAPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
2. MANJU K.N
W/O LATE PAPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
3. DHANANJAYA
S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA,
ALL ARE R/AT KATTEKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HAKKIHEBBAL HOBLI,
KRISHNARAJPET TALUKU,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571426
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SAKARAJA N C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENU T S
MAJOR, R/O NO.164, 5TH CROSS,
VARMA LAYOUT, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
H.A.FARM, BENGALURU-560024.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59388
MFA No. 8064 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010718352024
2. ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE CO.LTD,
NO.204, MYTHRI ARCADE,
KANTHARAJA ARASU ROAD,
NEAR AXIS BANK, MYSURU-570001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DTD: 08.06.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 360/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MEMBER, MACT, KRISHNARAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) by the
appellants/claimants not satisfied with the compensation
awarded in the judgment and award dated 28.03.2023 in
M.V.C.No.360/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge &
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59388
MFA No. 8064 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010718352024
JMFC & Member, MACT, Krishnarajpet (in short, ‘the
Tribunal’).
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks,
as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal in
nutshell is that the husband of claimant No.1, who is the
father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3 was pedestrian on
28.01.2018 at 03:15 p.m. on Somanahalli-
Kattekyathanahalli Road, near the land of one
Subramanya and at that time, the rider of TVS Star City
Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04/HP-7045 (offending
vehicle) rode rashly and negligently and dashed against
the deceased Papegowda and then while shifting to
K.R.Hospital, Mysuru for higher treatment, he succumbed
to those injuries. The deceased was doing agriculture and
mason work. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owner and
insurance Company of the offending vehicle. Hence, the
claimants being the wife and major children of the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59388
MFA No. 8064 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010718352024
deceased have claimed compensation under different
heads.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their objection
statement denying the contention of the claimants.
Respondent No.2 further took contention that the driver of
the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective
driving licence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. After framing issues, recording evidence and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of ` 11,55,000/- under following heads:
Sl Nos Nature of Compensation Amount
` 9,90,00/-
1 Loss of Dependency
2 Loss of Estate ` 16,500/-
3 Loss of consortium 44,000/- x each ` 1,32,000/-
` 16,500/-
4 Funeral expenses
` 11,55,000/-
Total
6. Not satisfied with the same, the
appellant/claimants are before this Court.
7. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellants Sri Sakaraja N.C.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59388
MFA No. 8064 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010718352024
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that even though RTCs are produced to show that
the deceased was an agriculturist having sufficient income,
the Tribunal has taken only the notional income of the
deceased which is incorrect. Further, only 10% was added
towards future prospects but it should be 25%. Hence,
prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-Sri B.
Pradeep would submit that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires no
interference.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides,
verifying the appeal papers, the point that arises for
consideration is:
"Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?"
11. Finding of this Court is in ' Negative' for the
following:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59388
MFA No. 8064 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010718352024
REASONS
12. The facts established before the Tribunal are
that on 28.01.2018, the husband of claimant No.1 as
pedestrian and met with the road traffic accident that has
taken place involving the offending vehicle and on the
same day, while shifting him to the K.R.Hospital, Mysuru
for higher treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. He left
behind his wife and two major sons.
13. The age of the claimant No.1 was shown as 55
in the claim petition. Nothing is produced to say that the
deceased was younger to his wife. Only based on PM
Report and Inquest Report, his age was considered as 50
and thus, rightly the Tribunal has taken the future
prospects at 10% and not 25%. Furthermore, except
producing some RTCs, no document is produced to show
the actual income of the deceased. The deceased left
behind the agricultural properties to his wife and major
sons, who are capable to look after the properties. Hence,
the notional income of deceased taken at ` 12,500/- by the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59388
MFA No. 8064 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010718352024
Tribunal is also proper. Hence, the amount awarded by the
Tribunal under the head 'loss of dependency' requires no
interference.
14. By considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v/s
1
Pranay Sethi & Others the Tribunal has taken the loss
of consortium at `4 0,000/- plus 10% escalation charges to
each of the claimants and has awarded ` 15,000/- plus
10% escalation charges under the head 'loss of estate' and
'funeral expenses', and awarded the total compensation of
`
11,55,000/-. The said compensation amount awarded by
the Tribunal is in accordance with the guidelines given by
Pranay Sethi ' s case cited supra and Magma General
Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram &
2
Ors . Hence, the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal requires no interference.
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
2
2018 ACJ 2782
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59388
MFA No. 8064 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010718352024
15. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is dismissed .
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SPV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32