- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6922 OF 2023(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARI @ VASANTHAKUMARI, W/O SURESH H.S., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 2. SURESHA H.S., S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 3. VARSHANGOWDA A.S. @ VARSHITH, S/O SURESHA H.S., AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O HOSAHALLY VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, NOW R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI GIRISH B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER, CHOLA MANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DARE HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, NO.2, N.S.C.BUS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 001. REP. BY CHOLA MANDALAM M.S.GENERAL, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 INSURANCE COMPANY, NO.271, ASHRAYA LAKSHMI VILASA ROAD, DEVRARAJA MAHALLA, MYSORE-570 001. 2. SHIVASWAMY, S/O RANGEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 2(A) JAYANTHI, W/O LATE SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2(B) MEGHANA, D/O LATE SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 2(C) CHANDANA, D/O LATE SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2(A) TO 2(C) ARE R/O KURADAHALLY VILLAGE, BAGUR POST AND HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HALASHETTI JAGADISH SIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2024, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2(A) TO 2(C) ARE DISPENSED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1881, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.391/2021 BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19.06.2023 passed in MVC.No.391/2021 by the Court of III Additional District Judge and MACT at Hassan (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The claimants are the legal representatives/ dependents of one Vasantha, who was a pillion rider along with Sri Phaniraj H.S., who was the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.02-HV-6519, which met with an accident leading to the death of the pillion rider-Vasantha. Hence, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 3.1 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,66,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed respondent-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within two months. 3.2 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants contends that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation including the income and consortium, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. The tribunal has failed to award future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 5. Per contra, Sri Halashetti Jagadish Sidramappa, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. In fact, the income taken is on the higher side and no further compensation is required to be enhanced in favour of the claimants, as the tribunal has taken all aspects into consideration while awarding just and reasonable compensation. On these grounds he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 5.1 It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company that, as per the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others stated supra, the awarding of 40% towards future prospects is limited to the persons, who hold permanent jobs or self-employed, having actual salaries or established incomes and it may not go beyond that, and if so, it cannot be expanded to others that are - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 not established and pleaded by the claimants, either in the claim petition or by the evidence or any materials before the Court. 5.2 He vehemently contends that there is no material placed before the Court by the claimants to establish the fact that the deceased was holding a permanent job having actual salary or self-employed having established income. They have not produced any documentary evidence to prove his employment or income or self- employed status. Hence, the tribunal has rightly decided the aspect of future prospects, which is sustainable in law even before this Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for appellants- claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and death having occurred due to the road traffic accident, are not in dispute. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 against the driver of the offending vehicle. The policy being in force, the Insurance Company has fixed the liability. 7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is stated that the income taken by the tribunal is Rs.12,000/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.14,500/- for the accident of the year 2020. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.14,500/-. The age of the deceased was 21 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘18’, which does not call for interference. 8. The claimants are admitted that the deceased is unmarried and was a bachelor. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, which does not call for interference. 40% would - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 have to be at future prospects, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others stated supra, wherein though the classification is made with regard to permanent jobs or self-employment at para 33 of the said judgment, there is a clear distinction as to how the self-employed have to be treated. It is necessary to extract relevant portion of para 33 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "xxxxx It is canvassed that it may not be possible to introduce an element of standardisation as submitted by the claimants because there are many a category in which a person can be self-employed and it is extremely difficult to assimilate entire range of self-employed categories or professionals in one compartment. It is also asserted that in certain professions addition of future prospects to the income as a part of multiplicand would be totally an unacceptable concept. Examples are cited in respect of categories of professionals who are surgeons, sports persons, masons and carpenters, etc. It is also highlighted that the range of self-employed persons can include unskilled labourer to a skilled person and hence, they cannot be put in a holistic whole. That apart, it is propounded that experience of certain professionals brings in disparity in income and therefore, the view - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 expressed in Sarla Verma that has been concurred with Reshma Kumari should not be disturbed." 9. What is relevant to take into consideration here is that there are several unskilled labourers in unorganised sectors, who may not have necessary documentary proof or evidentiary material to place on record or witnesses to state common employment. Therefore, the aspect of self- employment is taken into consideration for awarding future prospects, which is reduced to 10% from that of the permanent job. Therefore, considering the age of the deceased being less than 40 years, 40% is required to be taken towards future prospects in the present case. Under the circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.21,92,400/- (Rs.14,500/- + 40% = Rs.20,300/- - 50% = Rs.10,150/- x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.12,96,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 10. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and the same requires to be modified. As there - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 are three dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- per head as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore, under the head loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3) along with 10% escalation towards one block period, which would be Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- + 10%). 11. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which also do not call for interference. In all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.30,000/- under these heads. However, 10% escalation on the same to be awarded, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%). 12. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.23,57,400/- as against Rs.13,66,000/- as mentioned in the table below: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2055 MFA No. 6922 of 2023 Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 21,92,400-00 Loss of consortium 1,32,000-00 Loss of estate and funeral expenses 33,000-00 TOTAL 23,57,400-00 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed; ii) The judgment and award dated 19.06.2023 passed in MVC.No.391/2021 by the Court of III Additional District Judge and MACT at Hassan, is modified; iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.23,57,400/- as against Rs.13,66,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.; iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal are undisturbed and retained. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN