- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 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 MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.201231 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MAHADEV S/O MALAKARI PUJARI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 2. GEETHA W/O MAHADEV PUJARI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: H.H WORK, BOTH ARE R/O: RAJAPUT GALLI, VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SOLAPUR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA 586101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, VIVEK NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC.NO.835/2015. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 09.01.2018 passed in MVC.No.835/2015 by the IV Additional District Judge and Member, MACT-XIII, Vijaypura. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 02. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the claim petition is filed by the parents of the deceased – Manoj under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, contending that the deceased - Manoj was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28-EG- 6880, towards Vijaypura from Kolhar, at that time the driver of the police minibus bearing Reg.No.KA-28-G-372 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motorcycle ridden by the deceased, resulting in the deceased sustaining grievous injuries and he succumbed to those injuries. It is averred that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and was having a capacity to earn more than Rs.20,000/- per month after completion of his BAMS course. It is further averred that the deceased was working on part-time basis and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of death. Hence, sought for compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 03. The respondents entered appearance and opposed the claim petition by denying the negligence of the driver of the minibus. They have denied the age and the education qualification of the deceased. It is further averred that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, which has resulted in his accidental death. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 04. The Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimants examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 12. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, applied 18 multiplier, deducted 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, as the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and awarded total compensation Rs.8,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 05. Being aggrieved of the same, the claimants are in appeal seeking for higher compensation. 06. Sri. Sanganagouda V. Biradar, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal committed a grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- without appreciating the fact that the deceased was a meritorious student pursuing his BAMS II year course and was also doing part-time job under PW.3. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW.3, wherein he has deposed that he was paying Rs.8,000/- per month to the deceased and assessed the income at Rs.7,500/- per month. The assessment of income by the Tribunal was the present earning which was out of part-time employment and not of the potential earning capacity of the deceased. 07. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishnupriya Panda vs. Basanti Manjari Mohanty and another, in Civil Appeal No.4011 of 2023 (arising out of SPL (C) No.16447/2022), wherein the Hon’ble - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 Supreme Court has considered the income of the deceased who was a MBBS Graduate at Rs.50,000/- per month. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the income at least to Rs.20,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in not adding 40% of the income under the head of loss of future prospects and has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the compensation by allowing the appeal. 08. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the claimants have failed to produce any legally acceptable evidence before the Court with regard to the income of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, which does not call for any modification. It is also submitted that the deceased has just joined the BAMS course and Ex.P.12 cannot be the basis to assess the income of the deceased. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 09. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused meticulously the material available on record. 10. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal, is; Whether the impugned judgment and award of Tribunal call for any interference.? 11. The parties to the proceeding do not dispute that on 09.04.2015, one Sri. Manoj met with a road accident and succumbed to the injuries suffered in the said accident. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence, that the driver of the police minibus was negligent has attained finality as the respondents have not filed any appeal challenging the same. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, considering the oral testimony of PW.3, who had provided a part-time employment to the deceased after the college hours. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 12. The PW.3 in his evidence has deposed that he used to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the deceased and considering the same, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. In our considered view, the Tribunal committed an error in considering only the oral testimony of PW.3 in assessing the income. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased was a meritorious student and got admitted as a BAMS student at Smt. Rajeswari Karpuramath Memorial (R.K.M) Ayurved Medical College, Hospital and P.G. Research Centre, Vijayapur. The certificate issued by the Principal of the said college indicates that the deceased was studying in I year BAMS course. 13. In support of the claim, the claimants have produced Ex.P.9, which indicates that the deceased has completed computer basic and M.S. office application course. These documents clearly indicate that the deceased was an academically sound student and had also acquired additional qualifications like a computer course. Considering the same, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice would be met, if we assess the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 14. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the claimants cannot help him for the simple reason that in the aforesaid case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the deceased was a MBBS 4th years student. The income earned by the MBBS Graduates and income earned by the BAMS Doctors (Ayuverdic Doctors) is altogether different. We have also taken a note of the said fact and assess the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. 15. Having assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and considering his age as 22 years, we are of the view that the claimants are also entitled to an addition of 40% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 16. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. Hence, the appropriate deduction would be 50% towards the personal and living expenses. Hence, the compensation is re-determined as under:- Rs.15,000/- + 40% (Rs.6,000/-) = Rs.21,000/- x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.22,68,000/- 17. The claimants are also entitled to a consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram2. Hence, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. 18. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation is re- assessed as under: 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 Description Amount Loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Rs. 80,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.23,78,000/- Award of the Tribunal Rs.08,40,000/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.15,38,000/- 19. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 09.01.2018 passed in MVC.No.835/2015 by the IV Additional District Judge and Member, MACT-XIII, Vijaypura, is modified. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 (iii) The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.15,38,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iv) The claimants are not entitled to an interest for the delayed period of 708 days as per the order dated 29.11.2023. (v) The apportionment made by the Tribunal is unaltered. (vi) The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1714-DB MFA No. 201231 of 2021 (vii) The respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (viii) No orders as to costs. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:SI