- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3318 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MR. HAMEED @ HAMID @ ABDUL HAMEED S/O ABDUL KHADAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SMT. HALIMAMMA @ ALIMAMMA W/O HAMEED @ HAMID @ ABDUL HAMEED AGED 45 YEARS, 3. MOHAMMAD RESHEEK @ MOHAMMED RASEEK S/O HAMEED @ HAMID @ ABDUL HAMEED AGED 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND FATHER APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN ALL ARE RESIDING AT H NO.6-45 MARIPALLA PADI HOUSE PUDU POST AND VILLAGE BANTWAL TLAUK PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ZOHARA MANZIL MUKKACHAERY ULLAL MANGALURU D.K. PIN-575 012 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING PARTNER SRI GANESH SHIPING AGENCY Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 SRIRAM BUILDING KOTARA CHOWKI MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT - 575 006 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COM. LTD., SECOND FLOOR INLAND ORNATTE OPPOSITE HOTEL OCEAN PEARL KODIALBAIL MANGALURU D.K. – 575 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 3. AYISHA PARHANA @ AYISHA PARWANA D/O HAMEED @ HAMID @ ABDUL HAMEED AGED 23 YEARS, 4. FATHIMA D/O HAMEED @ HAMID @ ABDUL HAMEED AGED 20 YEARS, 5. FAKEEZA D/O HAMEED @ HAMID @ ABDUL HAMEED AGED 18 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE ALL RESIDING AT H NO.6-45 MARIPALLA PADI HOUSE PUDU POST AND VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ZOHARA MANZIL MUKKACHERY ULLAL MANGALURU D.K. PIN – 575 012 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2023, NOTICE TO R1, R3, R4 & R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2018 IN MVC NO.358/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K., MANGALURU AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED IN THIS APPEAL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT Though this appeal is posted for Admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded dated 28.09.2018, passed by the III Addl. District and Session Judge, MACT-IV, D.K, Mangaluru, in MVC.No.358/2017. 3. The parties shall be referred as per their rankings before the Tribunal for easy reference. 4. The appellants/claimants filed petition seeking compensation in respect of death of Mohammed Sinan, in a road traffic accident on 10.06.2016. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death occasioned and the liability are not in dispute. The only question is on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 5. Sri.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the year of the accident being 2016, the Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. According to the appellants, the deceased was a 16 year intelligent and bright student both in curricular and also in extracurricular activities. Even though the deceased was not an adult but he cannot be considered as a child, he has to be considered as an ‘adolescent’. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another1, while determining the multiplier in accidental claims, has taken into consideration persons from the age group of 15 years and onwards. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal in the present case at para-52 of its judgment runs contrary to the spirit of the judgment referred supra. The 1 2009 ACJ 1298 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be modified by awarding suitable enhancement, taking note of the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (for short ‘KSLSA’) for the year 2016. To buttress his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chetana And Others vs. Babuji.M And Others2. In the said judgment, this Court has taken the notional income as fixed by the KSLSA, though the deceased was 17 years, at the time of death. 6. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the claimants and awarded just and proper compensation on the basis of the record and supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that the appeal be dismissed. 2 MFA No.102268/2019, dtd. 13.11.2020 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit the concept of just compensation? 8. My answer to the above point is partly in negative for the following reasons: Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2016 and as per chart prepared by the KSLSA, the notional income recognized is Rs.9,500/- p.m. for the year 2016. The claimant was aged 16 years and an adolescent as on the date of the accident and the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased was aged 17 years at the time of accident, was a student and doing milk vending business, an earning member of his family. In the case on hand, the deceased was 16 years, at the time of the death and was a student. The claimants have not stated anything - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 regarding his earning. In these circumstances, it is not safe to take the income at Rs.9,500/- p.m., as fixed by KSLSA stated supra. In the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra, the Court had considered the case for awarding compensation when the deceased was neither a child nor a major but was an adolescent. This Court at paragraph No.10 of the judgment observed as follows: “10. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 17 years as on the date of the accident. He might not be an adult but he cannot be considered as a child. He has to be considered as an adolescent. Section 2 (i) and (ii) of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) defines as follows: “(i) “adolescent” means a person who has completed his fourteenth year of age abut has not completed his eighteenth year; (ii) “child” means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age or such age as may be specified in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), whichever is more.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 9. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged 16 years an adolescent and a student having bright future, it would be appropriate to consider the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi3, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects. Since the deceased was an adolescent, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses. On redetermination of the loss of dependency, the same works out as follows: Rs.6,000 + 40% = 8,400 – 50% = 4,200 x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,07,200/- 10. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards ‘loss of filial consortium’. The dependants being the parents and four siblings of the deceased, are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each along with 10% + 10% escalation in terms of law declared by 3 2017 (16) SCC 680 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rasmita Biswal & Others vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited And Another4. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 6 + 10% + 10%). 11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads such as funeral expenses and loss of estate does not require any interference. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra there shall be an escalation of 10% + 10% on the conventional heads for each three years. Taking into consideration of the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral and ritual expenses’ being Rs.30,000/-, the 10%+10% escalation works out to Rs.6,000/- (Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000). The appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of 4 (2022) 2 SC 767 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 Rs.36,000/- towards conventional heads. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered. 12. In summary, the total compensation re- determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 9,07,200/- 2. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 2,88,000/- 3. Loss of Estate : Rs. 18,000/- 4. Funeral and ritual expenses : Rs. 18,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 12,31,200/- 13. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.12,31,200/- as against Rs.3,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.8,77,200/- (Rs.12,31,200 – Rs.3,54,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 compensation within Six Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is Allowed-In-Part; ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.358/2017, dated 28.09.2018, passed by the III Addl. District and Session Judge, MACT-IV, D.K, Mangaluru is modified; iii) The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.8,77,200/- (Rs.12,31,200 – Rs.3,54,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization; iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 - Insurance - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13439 MFA No. 3318 of 2019 Company, within Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; v) Disbursement as well as apportionment of the compensation amount shall be as per the impugned order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5