- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202593 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. PUNDALIK S/O NILU RATHOD @ NAIK, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 2. GURUBAI W/O PUNDALIK RATHOD @ NAIK, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL RATHOD @ NAIK, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. CHANNABASU S/O SUNIL RATHOD @ NAIK, AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 5. TANU D/O SUNIL RATHOD @ NAIK, AGE: 04 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 6. MAHESH D/O SUNIL RATHOD @ NAIK, AGE: 04 YEARS, OCC: NIL, SINCE APPELLANT NO.4-6 ARE THE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER APPELLANT NO.3, ALL R/O KARIHAL LT NO.2, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 AND: 1. BASAVARAJ B. S/O BASANNA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O OBANNAHALLI, CHELLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 522. 2. THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, V.A. KALABURAGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI-580 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 13.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.03.2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-XV, VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO. 1287/2019. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Though the matter is slated for admission, by consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal and heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.03.2022 in MVC No.1287/2019 by the MACT-XV Vijayapura (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioners are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 16.06.2018 at 10:30 p.m. the deceased-Sunil while he was going on motorcycle a canter bearing No.KA-16/C- 2391 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 came from opposite side and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased and he died at the spot. The petitioners, who are the father, mother, wife and 3 children have approached the Tribunal seeking compensation. They contended that the deceased was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 aged about 30 years, doing centering work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It is contended that due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered financially and therefore, adequate compensation be awarded to them. 4. Upon being served with notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and they resisted the claim petition. They contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and they denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. Inter alia they also contended the negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. It was also contended by the Insurance Company that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the driver of respondent No.1. 5. The Tribunal framed the appropriate issues and the petitioner No.3 examined as PW.1 and one witness as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. On behalf of respondents, insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 6. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 17,97,852/- 2. Loss of consortium 50,000/- 3. Loss of filial love and affection 75,000/- 4. Funeral expenses and obsequies 20,000/- 5. Loss to the estate 10,000/- Total 19,52,852/- 7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency only. He submits that he restricted claim only in respect of assessment of income under the head of loss of dependency. He further draws the attention of the Court to Ex.P8, issued by the Contractor that the deceased was receiving a salary of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 Rs.600/- per day. On the basis of Ex.P8, it is submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.11,750/-. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the author of Ex.P8 is not examined and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in assessing the income on the basis of the notional value. It is contended that the notional income considered by the Tribunal is proper and correct and no interference is required. 9. The fact of the accident and liability of respondent No.2 to pay the compensation is not in dispute. Therefore, the only point needs to be considered is whether the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is proper and correct. Evidently the petitioners have not examined the author of Ex.P8. The cardinal principle of evidence is that the author of the document has to be examined. The Ex.P8 is a certificate allegedly issued on letterhead by the Contractor. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 veracity of the Contractor as to whether he was capable of engaging the services of the deceased and whether he really was a Contractor or not? is not tested before the Tribunal. There are no other documents, which would show that the author of Ex.P8 was a class-3 Contractor engaged in the construction work and he used to pay the wages at Rs.600/- per day to the deceased. In the absence of any supported documents or the corroborative material and also the author of Ex.P8 having not been subjected to cross-examination, it is difficult to rely on Ex.P8. In the light of the same, the Tribunal assessing the loss of dependency by resorting to notional income cannot be found fault with. 10. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.11,750/-, which is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the KSLSA as well as it is in a general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act for a skilled worker. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 11. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal failed to add the future prospects to the national income. The said error being apparent, the loss of dependency has to be calculated by adding the future prospects also by adding 40% of Rs.11,750/-, the multiplicand would come to Rs.16,450/-. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.25,16,850/- (16450 x 12 x ¾ x 17). 12. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for following amount of compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 25,16,850/- 2. Loss of consortium 50,000/- 3. Loss of filial love and affection 75,000/- 4. Funeral expenses and obsequies 20,000/- 5. Loss to the estate 10,000/- Total 26,71,850/- Less the amount awarded by the Tribunal 19,52,852/- Enhancement 7,18,998/- 13. In other words, the petitioners are entitled for an additional sum of Rs.7,18,998/-. Rest of the order of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1829 MFA No. 202593 of 2022 the Tribunal stands unaltered. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in-part and pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellants/petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.7,18,998/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51 CT: AK