Karnataka High Court
MFA/3938/2023 of MRS. CHANDRAMATHI. H. S. Vs MR. BASAVALINGAPPA on 1 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:25514 MFA No. 3938 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3938 OF 2023(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. CHANDRAMATHI. H. S., W/O LATE RAMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3938 OF 2023(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1.
MRS. CHANDRAMATHI. H. S.,
W/O LATE RAMALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O NEAR KAVITHA GARMENTS,
BANAVARA POST,ARASIKER TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 103.
2.
MR. MANJUNATH S.R.
S/O LATE RAMALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NEAR KAVITHA GARMENTS,
BANAVARA POST,ARASIKER TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 103.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA R C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MR. BASAVALINGAPPA
S/O CHIDANANADAPPA ,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O YATNAHATTI VILLAGE,
KARADONA POST,
GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT – 583 227.
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
MR. CHIKKANNA,
S/O GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O NO.1857,
RAYANNA NAGARA,NELMANGALA,
BENGALURU TOWN – 562 123.
3.
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
VISHRANTHI MELARAM TOWERS,
NO.2/319, RAJEEV GANDHI SALARI,
(OMR) KARAPAKKAM
CHENNAI – 600 097.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI. S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 15.04.2022 NOTICE TO
R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.10.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.113/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU, 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 MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, arising out of Judgment and Award dated 03.10.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kadur1 in M.V.C No.113/2020.
2. The Tribunal by means of Judgment and award, awarded compensation of Rs.15,24,200/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
3. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Sri.Ramalingappa and liability to pay compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation.
4. Heard, Smt.Manjula, learned counsel appearing for Sri.R.C.Nagaraj, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants and Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi, learned counsel for 1 ‘the Tribunal’, for short.
HC-KAR
respondent No.3 – Insurer. Vide order dated 15.04.2022, notice to respondents 1 and 2 are dispensed with.
5. Smt.Manjula, learned counsel with all vehemence submits that the deceased was an agriculturist. The claimants have produced several RTCs in respect of 03 agricultural lands. The deceased was earning handsome income from doing agricultural work i.e., Rs.75,000/- per month. The Tribunal has considered income at Rs.14,000/- fixed under the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in respect of unskilled labor for the year 2019. She submits that a person having lands in three survey number cannot be equated with an unskilled labor. Further, she submits that the Tribunal has not awarded 10% escalation towards the compensation awarded under conventional heads as considered by the Supreme Court in NATIONAL
HC-KAR
INSRUANCE CO. LTD., VS. PRANAY SETHI2, and sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.
6. In contrast, Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi, submits that except producing RTCs there is no document produced or placed on record by the claimants to prove the income i.e., Rs.75,000/- per month. The RTCs are in respect of lands, even after the death of Ramalingappa, the lands continued with the family. What is required to be considered is only the supervision charges and not more than that. The Tribunal considered this aspect of the matter and considering the income at Rs.14,000/-, however added future prospectus at 40%, which is erroneous. The reason being, the deceased was 58 years as on the date of death. As per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in PRANAY SETHI supra, 10% should have been considered towards future prospectus. So far as other contentions of learned counsel for the claimants, Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi, submits that the Tribunal has properly considered the entire 2 2017 (16) SCC 680
HC-KAR
material placed before it and awarded appropriate and just compensation and accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel Smt.Manjula. A person having land in three survey numbers cannot be equated with an unskilled labor. However, the fact remains that the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.14,000/-, but added future prospectus at 40% which is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in PRANAY SETHI supra. In these circumstances, instead of deliberating much on the contentions and the Judgment of the Tribunal, if a global compensation of Rs.40,000/- with the consent of both the parties is awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum, the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The
Judgment
and Award dated 03.10.2022 passed by Tribunal in M.V.C No.113/2020 is modified enhancing the compensation amount by another sum of Rs.40,000/- globally, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) Respondent No.3 – Insurer shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest supra, within six weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iv) Upon deposit, entire amount shall be released in favor of the claimants on proper identification.
HC-KAR
(v) The Trial Court Record secured if any, shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.
(vi) No order as to costs.
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4