- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3475 MFA No. 200820 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200820 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. NIRMALA W/O LATE SRIKANTH METTGE, AGED: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. NIKHIL S/O LATE SRIKANTH METTGE, AGE: 09 YEARS, 3. LAXMI D/O LATE SRIKANTH METTGE, AGE: 6 YEARS, BOTH ARE U/G OF APPELLANT NO.1. 4. PARAMMA W/O SHARANAPPA METTAGE, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 5. SHARANAPPA S/O GUNDAPPA METTGE, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, ALL ARE R/O: VILLAGE SIRSI (A), TQ: & DIST: BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SHANTABAI SUBHASH PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3475 MFA No. 200820 of 2021 AND: 1. MR. PARMESH MARRI S/O CHANDRIAH CHINNUGUDAM, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CHINNUGUDAM NARSING BATLA, NALGONDA – 508 001 (A.P.). 2. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER, REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE, WESTERN APPROACH HIGHWAY AND ANDHERI KURLA-ROAD, ANDHRI (EAST), MUMBAI – 400 069. (COMMERCIAL MOTOR INSURANCE QUATE NO.0000000001144442 VALID FROM 05.03.2013 TO 04.03.2014) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.11.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. MACT AND PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR, IN MVC NO.515/2014 AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 14.11.2016, passed by Prl. MACT and Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bidar (‘tribunal’ for short) in MVC no.515/2014, this appeal is filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3475 MFA No. 200820 of 2021 2. Smt.Shantabhai Patil, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that on 17.06.2013, when Srikanth was walking by side of road of Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad, driver of lorry bearing no.AP-29/TA-2268, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against him, causing accident. In said accident, Srikanth sustained fatal injuries and died. Alleging loss of dependency, his wife, children and parents filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act against owner and insurer of lorry. 3. On contest, owner denied occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry. Alternatively, submitted that vehicle was insured and sought for indemnification. 4. Respondent no.2/insurer contended that driver of insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on date of accident, by violating terms and conditions of policy. Claimants’ petition was also opposed on ground of being excessive and unjustified. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3475 MFA No. 200820 of 2021 examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Insurer examined its official as respondent no.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 5. On consideration, tribunal held, accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry driver, which led to death of Srikanth and therefore, claimants were entitled for compensation assessed as follows: 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,18,000 /- 2 Towards loss of love and affection Rs.20,000/- 3 Towards loss of estate Rs.20,000/- 4 Towards funeral, obsequies and transportation of dead body etc., Rs.20,000/- TOTAL: Rs.9,78,000/- 6. However taking note of fact that as on date of accident, driver of lorry did not have driving licence and owner/insured had failed to produce driving licence, permit, fitness certificate etc. Even after specific notice was produced by insurer and also said notice, postal receipts, acknowledgement etc., were marked as Exs.R1 to R6, held insurer was not liable and fastened liability on owner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3475 MFA No. 200820 of 2021 7. Dissatisfied with award, claimants are in appeal. 8. It was submitted, in claim petition, claimants had stated that Srikanth was working as fruit seller and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. However, tribunal assessed it at Rs.6,000/-, which was on lower side. Though tribunal also erred in not adding future prospects to monthly income, compensation awarded was on lower side. It was submitted, tribunal did not award adequate compensation under conventional heads or added periodic escalation as per decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. On said ground, sought for allowing appeal. 9. Respondent no.1 - owner, served, unrepresented. While, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel represented respondent no.2 - insurer. Since this appeal is on quantum, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3475 MFA No. 200820 of 2021 10. Insofar as monthly income, claimants have stated deceased was a fruit seller and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. However, they failed to substantiate same with specific evidence. In absence, tribunal assessed it notionally. Notional income for year 2013 being Rs.7,000/-, tribunal was not justified in taking it at Rs.6,000/-. Income has to be considered at Rs.7,000/- per month as per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and future prospects has to be added to monthly income. Deceased Srikanth was 30 years of age and self-employed. Therefore, addition of future prospects would be at 40%. Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier ‘17’ and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses. Thus, future loss of dependency would be: (Rs.7,000/-+40%)-1/4thX12X17=Rs.14,99,400/-. 11. Apart from above, claimant being wife, children and parents would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal, parental and filial consortium, respectively i.e., Rs.2,00,000/-.They would also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3475 MFA No. 200820 of 2021 estate etc. In all, Rs.2,30,000/-. Therefore, award under conventional heads would require modification. 12. Since more than 6 years have been lapsed after decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). As per direction therein 10% for three years has to be awarded under conventional heads. Thus, claimants would be entitled for 20% i.e., 46,000/-. In all, claimants would be entitled for compensation as under: 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.14,99,400/- 2 Towards loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/- 3 Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4 Towards funeral, obsequies and transportation of dead body etc., Rs.15,000/- 5 Addition of 20% on conventional heads Rs.46,000/- TOTAL: Rs.17,75,400/- 13. In all, claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,75,400/-. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. 14. Consequently, following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3475 MFA No. 200820 of 2021 ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 14.11.2016, passed by Prl. MACT and Principal District & Sessions Judge at Bidar, in MVC no.515/2014, is modified. ii. Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.17,75,400/- as against Rs.9,78,000/- awarded by tribunal and claimants are not entitled for interest for 1499 days of delay in filing appeal. iii. Respondent no.2-insurer is directed to deposit same before tribunal with interest at 6% from date of petition till deposit except for period of delay of 1499 days in filing appeal, within eight weeks. iv. Conditions imposed by tribunal about deposit and release would apply to enhanced compensation proportionately. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ/psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65