- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A. NO.105978 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. BASAVARAJ PATIL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YARAGATTI-591122, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. LAXMI VEERANNA SAMBALAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NARAGUND-582207, TALUKA: NARAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. 3. SMT. SHRUTI SHIVANAND JARALI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. RC PLOT, YAMAKANMARDI-591246, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 4. KUMARI SUSHMITA D/O. BASAVARAJ PATIL, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O. YARAGATTI-591122, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 5. KUMAR MOHAN S/O. BASAVARAJ PATIL, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O. NARAGUND-591122, TALUKA: NARAGUND, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 R/O. YARAGATTI-591122, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 6. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. SHIVAPUTRA PATIL, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YARAGATTI-591122, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI MAHALING S/O. RAMESH HUCHELI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MELAMANAHATTI-591231, TALUKA: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2024 IN MVC NO.963/2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, BELAGAVI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.17,69,775/- TO RS.50,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 23.08.2024 passed in MVC No.963/2022 by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi1. 2. The Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 08.01.2022 at about 07.30 p.m., the deceased Basavaraj was proceeding by walk near Badakundri Yaranal road on the left side of the road, at that time, a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-22/Q-1589 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the deceased resulting in the accident. It is averred that due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to multiple hospitals for treatment, wherein he succumbed to his injuries. 3. It is further averred that at the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years. At the time of death, he was earning around Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.13,000/- per month from other 1 for short, ‘Tribunal’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 avocations. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have suffered emotional and financial hardship. Hence, they filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. The Respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their statement of objections separately by denying age, income and avocation of the deceased. The Respondent No.2 contended that claimants in collusion with the police and hospital authorities falsely involved the offending vehicle and the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess an effective driving license at the time of accident. Hence, they sought to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. The Respondent did not adduce oral evidence but with consent got marked Exs.R1 to R4. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record partly allowed the claim petition and determined the total compensation at Rs.17,69,775/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal seeking for higher compensation. 6. Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.14,750/- per month as the deceased was only 50 years old as on the date of the accident and was earning an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, Rs.8000/- per month from milk vending and Rs.5,000/- per month from vegetable business. It is further submitted that the deceased was a sole earning member of the family and there are six dependants on his income, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the appellants No.2 to 6 and also awarded a meager compensation under the head of medical expenses. It is submitted that the Tribunal has also committed a serious error in awarding 10% compensation under the head of future prospects of the deceased as the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 of accident and erred in applying the multiplier, which is required to be enhanced. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Sangli V/s Smt. Bismilah2. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 7. Per contra, Sharmila M Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal on perusal of the evidence on record has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased, applied correct multiplier and also correctly added 10% under the head of future prospects. Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 2 MFA No.101337/2021 C/w MFA No.101664/2021 dated 19.06.2023. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 9. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference? 10. The above point is answered in the ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons: 11. The undisputed facts are that on 08.01.2022 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased-Basavaraj was proceeding by walk near Badakundri Yaranal road on the left side of the road, at the time a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-22/Q-1589 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the deceased resulting in the accident. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Rajeev Gandhi Hospital, Yamakanamaradi, wherein he was provided with first-aid treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Vijaya Ortho and Trauma Center, Belagavi, for further treatment, wherein he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years 6 months. At the time of death, he was earning around Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.13,000/- per month from other avocations. Due to the untimely death of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 deceased, the claimants have suffered emotional and financial hardship. Hence, they filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence partly allowed the claim petition by awarding a compensation of at Rs.17,69,775/-. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed. 12. The contention of the appellants is that the income assessed by the Tribunal is incorrect and has to be reassessed. However, admittedly no evidence is placed on record to re-assess the income of the deceased. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly income of the deceased based on the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA, which is correct and does not call for any interference. 13. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned, the deceased was aged about 50 years 6 months at the time of the accident, however, the Tribunal has erroneously considered his age as 51 years, which in our view needs to be reconsidered in order to determine the compensation. It would be useful to refer - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 to the decision of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Sangli referred supra has held as under: “16. The contention of the Corporation that the Tribunal has committed error 13 in applying multiplier as the deceased was aged 50 years 6 months. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and another has determined the multiplier based on the age group of the deceased. Accordingly, the multiplier is 13 for the age group between 46-50 and 11 multiplier for age group between 51-55. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Varma referred supra, we are of the considered view that the deceased was in age group of 46-50 and not 51-55 as he has not completed 51 years of age on the date of accident. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal has justified in applying the multiplier of 13 which does not call for interference.” 14. Hence, considering the enunciation of law laid down by this Court the age of the deceased in this case being 50 years 6 months, the appropriate multiplier would be 13 as against 11, which was considered by the Tribunal. Furthermore, as the deceased was aged about 50 years 6 months at the time of the accident, the claimants are entitled to an addition of 25% under - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased as opposed to 10%. 15. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to loss of dependency as under: (14,750 + 25% x 12 x 13 - ¼) = Rs.21,57,188/- 16. We are also of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance company limited v/s Pranay Sethi3, the claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium along with 10% escalation and also they are entitled to Rs.16,500/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses which includes 10% escalation. 17. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads: 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.25,40,688/- as against Rs.17,69,775/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. The claimants are entitled to 6% interest on the compensation amount from the date of claim petition till realization. 20. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal stands allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.25,40,688/- as against Rs. 17,69,775/- awarded by the Tribunal. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Loss of dependency 21,57,188/- Loss of estate 16,500/- Funeral expenses 16,500/- Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 X 6) 2,64,000/- Medical expenses 86,500/- Total 25,40,688/- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11638-DB MFA No. 105978 of 2024 c) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement of enhanced compensation shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. f) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68