- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202920 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SHANTAPPA S/O RACHAPPA KOTNOOR AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O SULEPET – 585324 TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI. 2. SMT. VIDYAVATI W/O SHANTAPPA KOTNOOR AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O SULEPET – 585324 TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARUN KUMAR S/O GUNDAPPA KOTE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.7-116, HUDGI – 585329 TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR. 2. M/S CHOLA CHOLAMANDALAMA GENERAL INSURACNE CO LTD., 2ND FLOOR, DARE HOUSE, 2 NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI – 600001 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BIDAR AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BIDAR IN MVC NO. 615/2021 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) seeking enhancement of compensation as against the judgment and award in MVC.No.615/2021 dated 06.01.2024 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Bidar, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 3. The case of the claimant is that the they filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.86,00,000/- for the death of their son Sri. Ganesh Prasad who died in the road traffic accident dated 29.02.2020. It is contended that on the said date, the deceased along with one Hamal Ghudusab and his friend Rangrao had come to Bidar in the morning on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 32/EW-4936 for the purchase of paddy for his Adath shop. While returning to Sulepet on the same motorcycle, at about 6:00 p.m., near Ayaspur cross in the limits of Kamthana Village, one Karan on his motorcycle bearing Engine No.PDYCKH11317, Chasis No.MD2B57CY1KCH31040 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The case was registered against the said Karan for rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer who were jointly liable to pay the compensation. It is contended - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 that the deceased was aged about 28 years earning Rs.50,000/- per month by doing business and maintaining the family and due to the sudden death, the father and mother of the deceased lost their dependency. Hence, they prayed for granting compensation on various heads. 4. The respondent No.1 though appeared through counsel did not file written objections. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed detailed objections by denying the averments made in the claim petition and also the age, occupation and income of the deceased as false. However, admitted the issuance of policy to the new vehicle in question and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “(i) Whether the Claimants prove that, Ganesh Prasad S/o Shantappa Kotnoor has died in an accident took place on 29-02-2020 at about 6.00 p.m. near Ayaspur cross limits of Kamthana Village, due to rash and negligent riding of un-numbered Motorcycle Engine No.PDYCKH11317, Chasis - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 No.MD2B57CY1KCH31040 belonging to the respondent No.1? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation? If so, from who and to what extent? (iii) What order or Award?” 6. In order to prove the case of the claimants, the 1st claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to P15. They also examined one eye witness as PW-2. One of the respondent was examined as RW-1 and got marked one document as Ex.R1. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded a compensation by calculating the income of the deceased Rs.10,000/- per month with 40% future prospects, deducted 50% and considered loss of dependency at Rs.14,28,000/- along with Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards the funeral expenses, totally awarded Rs.14,93,000/- with 6% interest per annum fixing liability on the insurance company. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants – claimants are before this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has committed error in considering the income at Rs.10,000/- which is not correct, even though the deceased has started a business and a license was issued by the APMC authority and he has also obtained the GST certificate which was marked as Ex.P8 and P12 and contended that the said documents were not properly considered by the Tribunal. It is further contended that even just prior to the accident the deceased also purchased a land under Sale deed dated 27.02.2020 marked as Ex.P.15, which reveals that the deceased had sufficient income to purchase a land, but the same was not properly considered. Hence, he prayed for enhancing the same. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- insurance company supported the award passed by the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and it is contended that there is no income - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 proof produced by the claimants. Therefore, the income cannot be enhanced. 9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for the respondent – insurance company and perused the material on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the accident dated 29.02.2020 occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle belonging to respondent No.1, due to which the deceased Ganesh Prasad sustained injury and died. The only consideration in this case is the income and the loss of dependency considered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the same are re-assessed by this Court. The Ex.P8 is the license issued by the APMC to the deceased for running the business, Ex.P9 is the license issued by the PDO, Sulepet for giving permission to run the business, Ex.P10 is the PAN card of the deceased. However, there is no income certificate or income tax returns produced by the claimants. Ex.P11 is Form No.65 for running the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 business and Ex.P12 is the GST registration certificate obtained by the concerned authority for running the business. Ex.P15 is the sale deed dated 27.02.2020 for having purchased the property just two days prior to the accident giving Rs.2,00,000/- as sale consideration. 11. It is the deceased who started the business, however there is no income certificate produced by the counsel for the claimants as the business was started just two months prior to the accident. However, it is submitted that previously he was also doing a joint business with the family members and thereafter, obtained the certificate for the running the business independently. 12. There is no rebuttal evidence from the respondents to show that the license and GST are not obtained by the deceased. The license for running the business and the GST registration certificate would suggest that the deceased had started a business and it cannot be said that there is no income for him and Ex.P.15 would also suggest that the deceased had purchased a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 land in his name just two days prior to the accident by paying Rs.2,00,000/-. Such being the case, we are of the opinion that considering the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month by the Tribunal is not correct. Even the Legal Services Authority in the Lok Adalath, would consider Rs.13,750/- as the income for the unskilled labour or notional income. Such being the case, when these documents are produced, it cannot be said that the income of the deceased should be restricted to either Rs.10,000/- or Rs.13,750/-. 13. Though there is no proper income proof of the deceased, however the documents produced by the claimants would show that the deceased had started a business and definitely he could have improved the business and earn more income. Therefore, we are of the opinion that at least Rs.20,000/- is required to be considered as income of the deceased instead of Rs.50,000/- as claimed by the claimants. If Rs.20,000/- is considered as income and 40% of future prospect is - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 added, it comes to Rs.28,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor, hence, 50% is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and it comes to Rs.14,000/-. Thus, loss of dependency is calculated as under: Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.28,56,000/-. 14. As both the claimants are parents of the deceased, they are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards the parental consortium as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram & others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 and Rs.30,000/- is required to be awarded towards the conventional head. 15. The finding of the Tribunal insofar as liability and direction to pay and recover, is hereby upheld. The Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards conventional head which is not correct. Accordingly, we propose to enhance the compensation to the claimants as under: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.28,56,000/- 2. Loss of consortium (40,000x2) Rs.80,000/- 3. Conventional amount Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.29,66,000/- Award of the Tribunal Rs.14,93,000/- Enhanced Amount Rs.14,73,000/- 16. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 06.01.2024 passed in MVC No.615/2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACt, Bidar is modified. (iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.14,73,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iv) The respondent-insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1721-DB MFA No. 202920 of 2024 period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: PS