- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3206 MFA No. 200310 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200310 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MAHADEVI W/O LATE HUSENAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 2. NARESH S/O LATE HUSENAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. LAXMI D/O LATE HUSENAPPA, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. USHA D/O LATE HUSENAPPA, AGE: 11 YEARS, 5. VEERESH S/O LATE HUSENAPPA, AGE: 7 YEARS, THE CLAIMANT NO.3 TO 5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER U/G MAHADEVI - CLAIMANT NO.1. ALL ARE R/O: ASHIKAL, RAICHUR – 584 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3206 MFA No. 200310 of 2025 AND: 1. P.PRAVEEN S/O P.ADINARAYAN, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY REG. NO.5/06, KURMAJIPETA, RAYALACERUVU VILLAGE, MANDAL, YADIKI, DIST: ANANTAPUR, ANDRA PRADESH STATE – 416 416. 2. PAPPAKA GOWRI W/O PAPPAKA GANNGARASU, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY REG. NO.AP-39/Y-3456, R/O: H.NO.5/06, KURMAJIPETA, MANDAL, YADIKI, DIST: ANANTAPUR, ANDRA PRADESH STATE – 416 416. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., SITUATED AT D.NO.3, PLOT NO.40 AND 41, MAHANTH ARCADE, SRI MAHANTH NAGAR, NEAR IDBI AND CANARA BANK, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., M.A.C.T., RAICHUR IN M.V.C.NO.541/2022 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3206 MFA No. 200310 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 01.04.2024 passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Raichur, in MVC No.541/2022, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sanganagouda V Biradar, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted an accident occurred on 16.06.2022, when Husenappa and Shivappa were riding motorcycle bearing no.KA-36/EV-8092 near Krishna Bridge, Shakti Nagar, driver of lorry bearing registration no.AP-39/Y- 3456 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle. In accident, Husenappa died on spot. His wife and four minor children filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act against driver, owner and insurer of lorry. Even, Shivappa also filed claim petition in MVC no.542/2022. Both claims were clubbed. 3. On appearance, owner filed objection which was adopted by driver, denying occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving by driver and alleging negligence against rider of motorcycle. Insurer filed separate objections, alleging - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3206 MFA No. 200310 of 2025 false implication of lorry and violation of police conditions. Age, occupation and income of deceased was also disputed. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, wherein PWs.1 to 4 were examined by claimants and Exhibits P.1 to P.21 were got marked. Insurer examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked insurance policy as Ex.R1. 5. On consideration, tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry leading to death of Husenappa and Shivappa sustaining physical disability/loss of earning capacity and therefore, they were entitled for compensation from insurer. In MVC no.541/2022, compensation was assessed as follows: 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.16,33,500/- 2. Towards funeral expensed and transportation Rs.15,000/- 3. Towards spousal and parental consortium and loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Towards Escalation prize Rs.46,000/- Total Rs.19,09,500/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3206 MFA No. 200310 of 2025 6. It was submitted claimants had stated that deceased Husenappa was earning Rs.30,000/- per month working as mason. They also produced certificate issued by Kashinath, a contractor indicating that he was employed as coolie and earning Rs.800/- per day i.e., Rs.22,000/- per month. Despite examining author of Ex.P.13 as PW.4, who also produced Contractor’s Passbook as Ex.P.21, tribunal disbelieved said material and considered notional income of Rs.15,000/-. On said ground sought for enhancement of compensation. 7. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. Claimants had failed to substantiate monthly income of deceased with proper records. It was submitted, considering entire material on record, tribunal had awarded just compensation leaving no scope for enhancement. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 9. From above, while insurer has accepted award and claimants are in appeal for enhancement, only point that would arise for consideration: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3206 MFA No. 200310 of 2025 “Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 10. Since, insurer has accepted liability, occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver, death of Husenappa, in accident and claimants being entitled for compensation are not in dispute. Appeal is on sole ground that income of deceased was not assessed properly. Materials available for establishing income are certificate issued by contractor (employer) as Ex.P.13 and deposition of its author as PW.4. It is also seen that PW.4 produced Contractor’s Passbook as Ex.P.21 to establish his avocation. 11. However, it is settled legal position that mere production of salary certificate unless same is issued by Government or State authorities would not be acceptable without corroboration. Though, PW.4 has deposed, in cross- examination suggestion is made that he had not obtained licence from Labour Department. Admission is elicited about non-production of income tax return. It is also seen PW.4 admits that he had not maintained records such as, Attendance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3206 MFA No. 200310 of 2025 Register, Muster Roll etc. He however denies about Ex.P.13 being false. 12. It is also seen that PW.4 stated that he was earning net profit of Rs.2-3 lakhs per annum from Contract Work i.e. about Rs.16,600/- to 25,000/- per month and yet claims to be paying a coolie working under him at Rs.24,000/- per month. In absence of corroborative records, such as, Muster Roll, Attendance Register or even income tax/service tax records, income as claimed relying upon Ex.P.13 would not be tenable. In absence of specific evidence to substantiate income, tribunal would be justified in assessing it notionally. Accident occurred in 2022. Therefore assessment of notional income at Rs.14,750/- would be fully justified. Thus, assessment of compensation towards loss of dependency as well as under other heads being in accordance with law, point for consideration is answered in negative. 13. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60/Ct:Vk