- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9057/2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDRAPAL B HEGDE S/O BABANNA M. HEGDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. NISHITHA C. HEGDE D/O CHANDRAPAL B HEGDE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT SWEETY CTO ROAD, DARBE, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574201 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI.VISHWANATHA POOJARY K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C. K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 018 3. THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE IV CODE, NO.070400 9/91/1, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH END ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004 4. SUDHAKAR B.K. S/O LATE B.K. NARNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT SAID DATTA HOYIGEBAILU ROAD Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 ASHOKA NAGARA, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 575 001 5. THE MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. PANAMBUR BRANCH OFFICE ANANDA BUILDING, KULAI MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:15.02.2016) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.952/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) “Whether the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants under the impugned award is just one?” is the question involved in this case. 2. Appellants were claimant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 were respondent Nos.1 to 4 in MVC No.952/2009 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Puttur, D.K. For the purpose of convenience, the parties - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. Claimants are husband and unmarried daughter of deceased Prabhatha C Hegde. On 18.05.2009 when Prabhatha C Hegde was traveling in KSRTC Volvo bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-8338 on N.H-48 within the limits of Uppinangadi police station, the said bus hit the road side stationary lorry. In the accident, Prabhatha and many other passengers suffered injuries. Prabhatha C Hegde succumbed to the said injuries. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the owner and insurer of KSRTC Volvo bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F- 8338 respectively. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were the registered owner and insurer of lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-A- 1850. 4. Claimants filed MVC No.952/2009 against the respondents contending that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of KSRTC bus. They further contended that Prabhatha was the proprietor of Prabhatha Automobiles, Puttur and earning Rs.75,000/- per month by the said business. They further contended that due to her death, claimant No.2/unmarried daughter and claimant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 No.1/her husband have suffered damages to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/- and claimed that respondents are liable to pay the said compensation. 5. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of driver of bus, lorry, age, occupation, income of the deceased and their liability to pay compensation. 6. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and Chartered Accountant of the deceased was examined as PW.2. On behalf of claimants, Exs.P1 to P31 were marked. Drivers of the Bus & Lorry were examined as RWs.1 & 2 respectively. On behalf of respondents, Insurance Policy of both the vehicles were marked as Exs.R1 & R2. 7. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award allowed the petition granting compensation of Rs.35,73,800/- payable by respondent No.2/Insurer of the KSRTC Bus. Respondent No.2 challenged the said award before this Court in MFA No.4674/2012(MV). This Court in MFA No.2015/2012 confirmed the findings of the Tribunal regarding occurrence of the accident due to actionable negligence on the part of driver - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 of the bus. The same was reiterated by this Court in MFA No.4674/2012(MV) dated 26.11.2014 in the appeal of respondent No.2/Insurer and remanded the matter only to consider quantum of compensation. 8. After such remand, the Tribunal on hearing the parties by the impugned award relying Ex.P.27/income tax return, considered the income of the deceased at Rs.2,50,444/-, added 30% to the same byway of future prospects, deducted 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, applied 13 multiplier and awarded Rs.28,21,663/- on the head of loss of dependency. Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.28,66,700/- on different heads as per the table below: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 28,21,663/- (2,17,051x13) Funeral expenses 15,000/- Loss of consortium 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 28,66,663/- Rounded off 28,66,700/- 9. Claimants have challenged the said award in the above appeal contending that income of the deceased considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 10. Sri Vishwanatha Poojary K, learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal should have considered income of the deceased as per Ex.P12/income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10, compensation awarded on the head of consortium and other conventional heads is not in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi1 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram2. 11. Sri S.V Hedge Mulkhand, learned Counsel for respondent No.2/insurer justifies the impugned award contending that Ex.P12 was submitted subsequent to death of the victim and there was inflation in the said income tax return as compared to the old income tax return. He submits that compensation awarded on the other heads is also just one. ANALYSIS: 12. None of the respondents have challenged the findings of the Tribunal with regard to actionable negligence on the part of driver of KSRTC bus and for relationship of the parties. Therefore, those findings have attained finality. 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 13. This Court in MFA No.4674/2012 already held that income assessed by the Tribunal on first occasion based on Ex.P12 was incorrect. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, there was inflation in Ex.P12/income tax return as compared to Ex.P27 which was submitted soon before the death of victim. That clearly goes to show that for the purpose of claim petition Ex.P12 which was submitted on 29.09.2009 i.e., post-accident, there is sudden hike in the income of the deceased. Therefore, Ex.P27 income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09 which was submitted on 28.09.2008 is more reliable and the Tribunal was justified in accepting the same. As per the said record, on deducting income tax in the gross income of the deceased, her annual income comes to (Rs.2,66,382–15,938=) Rs.2,50,444/- 14. As per Ex.P17 Election Identity Card of the deceased, she was born on 01.06.1959. Therefore, as on the date of accident, she was aged 49 plus years. As per the judgment of constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, for the age group of the deceased and considering her self-employment, 25% has to be superadded to her income byway of future prospects. Therefore, her income comes to (Rs.2,50,444 x - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 (25%)=Rs.62,611=) Rs.3,13,055/-. Considering the number of dependant 1/3rd has to be deducted for her personal expenses. Therefore, her contribution to the family would be (Rs.3,13,055 x 2/3=) Rs.2,08,703.33/-. Rounded to Rs.2,08,705. Applicable multiplier is 13. Therefore, compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is (Rs.2,87,705 x 13=)Rs.27,13,165/-. 15. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram3 cases each of the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- with escalation at 10% for each three years on the head of consortium. Similarly, claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- on the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of death body with escalation at 10% for each three years. Therefore, just compensation payable in the case is as follows: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 27,13,165/- Loss of consortium 1,04,000/- Loss of estate 19,500/- Funeral expenses 19,500/- Total 28,56,165/- 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13001-DB MFA No.9057/2015 16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.28,66,700/-. As insurer is not in appeal, compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be confirmed. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42