KUM. PRIYANKA PRIYANKA vs SANJAY S/O MARUTI SAVANT

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103393 OF 2017 (MV)


BETWEEN:

1. KUM. PRIYANKA
D/O PRAKASH GUTTAL
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT
R/O. JAYADEV NAGAR, HAVERI
DIST. HAVERI-581110.

2. SMT. CHAMPAVATI W/O CHANNABASAPPA MARAGAL
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. NOW NIL,
R/O. JAYADEV NAGAR, TQ. HAVERI,
DSIT. HAVERI-581110.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SANJAY S/O MARUTI SAVANT
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. LORRY BUSINESS,
(LORRY NO.MH-11/AL-1676)
R/O. LIMBA AT: POST LIMBA
TQ. AND DIST. SATARA,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA.












Digitally
signed by
ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.11.12
16:15:57
+0530
ROHAN
HADIMANI
T

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. 403, SANGALE SADAN
KAMANI HAUDAJAVAL, SATARA-4150002,
STATE: MAHARASHTRA,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.
#289/12, II FLOOR, "A.M. ARCADE,
C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD, DAVANGERI-577 002.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.P. MURARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.310/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI, AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT


1. The claimants namely, claimant No.1, the
daughter of the deceased and claimant No.2, the mother
of the deceased, being aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 10.07.2017 passed by the MACT and learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’) in MVC No.310/2014, have preferred the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and
fastening of liability on respondent No.2-Insurance
Company.
Facts in brief is that:

2. That on 16.02.2014 at 1.30 p.m. the deceased,
Smt. Maheshwari was proceeding near the Railway Bridge

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


on P.B. Road, walking by the side of the road. At that
time, a lorry bearing Registration No. MH-11/AL-1676,
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against her. Due to the impact, she sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the
spot.

3. In this regard, a complaint was lodged and
Crime No.25/2014 was registered. After investigation, the
police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the
said vehicle, and respondent No.2 is insurer.

4. The claimants filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal after
considering the evidence on record, awarded
compensation of ₹8,43,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared
before the Tribunal and contended that, though the
offending vehicle was insured with them the driver of the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at
the time of the accident. It was contended that the
offending vehicle was a heavy motor vehicle, whereas the
driver of the said vehicle was only possessed a driving
licence to drive a light motor vehicle. Therefore, the driver
had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy and consequently, the Insurance Company was not
liable to indemnify the owner or pay compensation to the
claimants.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the written
statement filed by the Insurance Company, exonerated
respondent No.2-Insurance Company from the liability and
directed respondent No.1, being the owner of the
offending vehicle, to pay the compensation to the
claimants.

7. Being aggrieved by fastening the liability solely
on respondent No.1-owner and absolving respondent
No.2-Insurance Company, and also being dissatisfied with

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the claimants have preferred the present appeal.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants:

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended
that, firstly, the Tribunal has erred in absolving respondent
No.2-Insurance Company from its liability.

9. Secondly, the Tribunal has assessed the income
of the deceased at ₹6,000/- per month, as against the
claim made by the claimants that the deceased was
earning ₹10,000/- per month.

10. It is further contended that, the Tribunal has
not awarded any compensation towards future prospects
and even under the other conventional heads therefore,
the compensation awarded is meagre. Hence, learned
counsel sought enhancement of compensation and also
prayed for fastening the liability on respondent No.2-
Insurance Company.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


Submissions of the learned counsel for
respondent No.2:

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that, as
the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid
and effective driving licence at the time of the accident,
the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance
Company from its liability. Hence, learned counsel
supported the impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal and sought dismissal of the appeal insofar as
respondent No.2-Insurance Company is concerned.

12. Heard the counsel for both the parties. Perused
the appeal memorandum, the impugned judgment and
award, the Trial Court records.
Regarding liability:

13. Insofar as the liability is concerned, as rightly
held by the Tribunal, at the time of the accident, the driver
of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle
involved in the accident. Thus, there was a violation of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, in
view of the principles laid down in the case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yellavva , respondent No.2-
Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to
the claimants at the first instance and thereafter, recover
the same from respondent No.1-owner of the offending
vehicle. Accordingly, the principle of pay and recover is
applicable.
Regarding quantum of compensation:

14. Though the claimants contended that, the
deceased was earning ₹10,000/- per month at the time of
the accident, no documentary evidence has been produced
to establish her actual monthly income.

15. In the absence of documentary evidence
regarding the income of the deceased, the notional income
is required to be assessed in accordance with the chart

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
Since the accident occurred in the year 2014, the notional
income of the deceased is taken at ₹7,500/- per month.

16. Further, as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi
case, in the case the deceased was self-employed or an a
fixed salary, where the deceased was aged 35 years at the
time of the accident, the claimants are entitled to an
addition of 40% towards future prospects. Accordingly,
40% of ₹7,500/-, which comes to ₹3,000/-, is added to
the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly
income of deceased would be ₹10,500/- (₹7,500 +
₹3,000).

17. The annual income of the deceased would be
₹1,26,000/- (₹10,500 × 12).

18. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of
the accident. Hence, the applicable multiplier is 16.
Rs.1,26,000/- x 16 = Rs.20,16,000/-

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


rd

19. Since there are two claimants, 1/3 of the
income is required to be deducted towards the personal
rd
and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, 1/3 of
the income is Rs.6,72,000/- (₹20,16,000/- x 1/3).

20. Accordingly, the compensation payable towards
loss of dependency is calculated as follows:
₹10500/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.20,16,000/-
rd
Rs.20,16,000 - 6,72,000/-(1/3 )
=Rs.13,44,000/-

21. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of ₹13,44,000/- towards loss of
dependency.

22. In addition to the aforesaid compensation, the
claimants are entitled to ₹18,000/- towards loss of estate
and ₹18,000/- towards funeral expenses include
escalation.

23. Further, in view of the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , together with the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


subsequent decisions governing consortium, claimant
No.1, being the daughter of the deceased, is entitled to
₹44,000/- towards parental consortium. Similarly,
claimant No.2, being the mother of the deceased, is
entitled to ₹44,000/- towards filial consortium. The
aforesaid amounts include 10% enhancement towards the
permissible escalation.

24. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the
claimants is reassessed as under:
Heads of compensation Amount
Loss of dependency ₹13,44,000/-
Loss of consortium (claimant Nos.1 and 2) ₹88,000/-
Loss of estate ₹18,000/-
Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-
Total ₹14,68,000/-

25. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the
following:

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

ii. The judgment and award dated 10.07.2017
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge and MACT Haveri, in MVC
No.310/2014 is hereby modified.

iii. The compensation payable to the claimants
shall stand modified in terms of the
calculation made hereinabove. And
claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.14,68,000/- only.

iv. The compensation shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
petition till realization.

v. The Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation amount, together with
interest thereon, after deducting the
amount, if any, already deposited before

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18099
MFA No. 103393 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020142102017


the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment.

vi. The amount in deposit, if any, before this
Court shall be transmitted to the
jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement in
accordance with law.

vii. Respondent No.2 the Insurance Company is
at liberty to recover the compensation
amount so paid, together with interest
thereon from respondent No.1.

viii. Draw the modified award accordingly.

Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE

AC
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22