- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100332 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: RENUKA D/O. DEVENDRAPPA BASUTKAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: TIPPANAL VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583327. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAYASHREE D/O. DEVENDRAPPA BASUTKAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, 2. YAMANAMMA W/O. DEVENDRAPPA BASUTKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. SOMANATH S/O. DEVENDRAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. SANTOSH S/O. DEVENDRAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 5. RUKMAWWA W/O. SOMAPPA, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL R/O: TIPPANAL VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583327. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:11 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 6. J.V. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. J. VEERSWAMY NAID, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY NO.TN: 23/2511, R/O: PALLA KUPPAM VILALGE MALIPATTI, PO. TUDIYATHAM TK, DIST: VELLORE (TN)-636206. 7. T.K. SHRIDHAR S/O. T.KRISHNA SWAMY NAIDU, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY NO.TN: 23/2511, R/O: KALLERI VILLAGE, PO. GANDHINAGAR, GUDIYATTAM TK DIST: VELLORE (TN)-636206. 8. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 12. KATPADI ROAD, (II FLOOR) GUDIYATTHAM NAADT, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5; SRI. KRISHNA N. MURNAL, ADVOCATE FOR R8; R1 AND R7 SERVED; R6 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL THE RECORDS IN M.V.C.NO.185/2001 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND M.A.C.T. GANGAVATI AND BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2002 AND TO ENHANCE THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri. N. L. Batakurki, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. D. V. Pattar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5, as well as Sri.Krishna N. Murnal, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangavathi (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) in MVC No.185/2001 dated 13.02.2002. 3. As borne out by record, the appellant, who is one of the claimants, was aged around 2 years as on the date of filing of the petition claiming compensation. The appellant, along with respondents 1 to 5 and deceased claimant by name Anand Kumar, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal, through the impugned order, granted a sum - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 of Rs.2,85,200/- as compensation. The version of the appellant is that, herself and the other claimants are entitled to a higher sum. 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the daughter of Devendrappa, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 18.09.1998. As per the version of the appellant and other claimants, the deceased Devendrappa (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”, for brevity) was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by selling readymade garments. However, the Tribunal took the daily income of the deceased as Rs.60/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the accident occurred in the year 1998 and the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by the date of accident, and therefore, the said figure should have been considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal failed to add future prospects. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 6. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.8, on the other hand is that, the deceased was aged around 28 years by the date of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 is 17, but the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18. Learned counsel also states that the dependents are seven in number, and therefore, 1/5th of the earnings are to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive. But the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the earnings only. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders accordingly. 7. Having considered the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1998, and as no substantive proof is produced to show that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by the date of accident, this 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 Court considers desirable to take notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month. 8. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged around 28 years by the date of accident. Therefore, 40% of the earnings of the deceased are required to be added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.2. 9. Claimant No.6 died during the pendency of the case. As on the date of the accident, the dependents were seven in number. Therefore, 1/5th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive. Likewise the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 17. Thus the compensation which the appellant and other claimants 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 are entitled to receive towards ‘loss of dependency’ is as follows: Notional monthly income Rs.2,500.00 Annual income Rs.30,000.00 On adding 40% towards future prospects Rs.42,000.00 On deducting 1/5th towards personal and living expenses Rs.33,600.00 Loss of dependency on applying appropriate multiplier of 17 Rs.5,71,200.00 10. Thus, the compensation which the claimants are entitled to receive towards ‘loss of dependency’ is Rs.5,71,200/-. 11. Together with the said amount, the appellant and other claimants are entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.5,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’, and Rs.40,000/- in total towards ‘loss of consortium’. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 12. Thus, the total compensation which the appellant and other claimants are entitled to receive under each head is as under: Head of Compensation Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 5,71,200.00 Funeral expenses 5,000.00 Loss of estate 5,000.00 Loss of consortium 40,000.00 Total 6,21,200.00 13. By all the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant and other claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,21,200/- as compensation. The claim of the appellant and other claimants was Rs.6,00,000/-. However, based on the above discussion, this Court concludes that they are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,21,200/- as compensation. The Courts are entitled to award compensation which is justifiable - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 though the same exceeds the amount claimed. This proposition is clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors3. Hence, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangavathi, through orders in MVC No.185/2001 dated 13.02.2002, is enhanced from Rs.2,85,200/- to Rs.6,21,200/-. iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, except for the period of delay of 5459 days, as per orders in I.A.No.1/2017. iv. The appellant and respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to equal share out of the enhanced sum. 3 AIR 2003 SC 674 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14473 MFA No. 100332 of 2017 v. Respondent No.8 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. vi. On such deposit, the appellant and respondents 1 to 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35