- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101406 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RANU W/O. SURESH MANE, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: KHUDUS, TALUK: MALASHIRAS, DIST: SOLAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA, NOW RESIDING AT VAIBHAV NAGAR BELAGAVI, TALUK BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. POOJA D/O. SURESH MANE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O: KHUDUS, TALUK: MALASHIRAS, DIST: SOLAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA, NOW RESIDING AT VAIBHAV NAGAR BELAGAVI, TALUK BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. ONKAR S/O. SURESH MANE, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: KHUDUS, TALUK: MALASHIRAS, DIST: SOLAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA, NOW RESIDING AT VAIBHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TALUK: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. VISHAL S/O. SURESH MANE, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: KHUDUS, TALUK: MALASHIRAS, DIST: SOLAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA, NOW RESIDING AT VAIBHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TALUK: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 5. LAXMI W/O. UTTAM MANE, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: KHUDUS, TALUK: MALASHIRAS, DIST: SOLAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA, NOW RESIDING AT VAIBHAV NAGAR BELAGAVI, TALUK: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANAND D.BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VITTHAL S/O. NARAYAN ADRAT, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AP MARKADWADI FONDSHIRAS, TALUK: MALSHIRAS, DIST: SOLAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA, PIN-413109. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OFFICE NO.1, 4TH FLOOR, KRISHNA TOWERS, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILKWADI, BELAGAVI, PIN-590006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.12.2021 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.673/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) This appeal is filed by the claimants-petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation, assailing the judgment and award dated 29.12.2021 passed in M.V.C. No.673/2019 by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The claimants preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), seeking compensation on account of the death of Suresh Mane, the husband of petitioner No.1. It is averred in the claim petition that while the deceased was waiting for a bus as a pedestrian by the side of the road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-45/AG-2640, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him. As a result, the deceased fell to the ground, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 38 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a driver and engaging in agricultural activities. It is further alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle. 3. Respondent No.1, upon service of notice, entered appearance through his counsel and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. He contended that the motorcycle in question was covered by an insurance policy issued by respondent No.2–the Insurance Company. Respondent No.2 also filed its statement of objections, denying the claim petition in toto. While admitting the issuance of the insurance policy covering the offending vehicle, specifically contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The age and income of the deceased were also disputed. 4. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and produced 09 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. The respondents neither led any evidence nor produced any documents. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 5. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents on record, awarded compensation of Rs.11,13,000/- to the claimants. The Tribunal held that the accidental death of the deceased was the result of actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Since the motorcycle was insured under a valid insurance policy, the Tribunal held respondent No.2 liable to indemnify the claim. 6. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, determined the age of the deceased as 43 years based on the Aadhaar card, as against 38 years as claimed by the petitioners. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month and applied the multiplier ‘14’. Considering that the deceased was survived by his wife, mother and three children, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium in favour of petitioner No.1. In - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 addition, it awarded Rs.20,000/- each to petitioner Nos.4 and 5 towards parental and filial consortium. 7. Sri Anand D. Bagewadi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased. It is contended that the deceased was employed as a driver and was also engaged in agricultural activities, earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the age of the deceased as 43 years, based on the Aadhaar card, instead of 38 years as specifically claimed by the petitioners. 7.1 Learned counsel also contends that the compensation awarded under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ is on the lower side and requires enhancement. It is further submitted that all the claimants, being the wife, mother and children of the deceased, are entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Additionally, it is urged that the Tribunal has failed to consider the enhancement of compensation under conventional heads by 10% for every three years, as laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 8. Sri Nagaraj C. Kollori, learned counsel for respondent No.2–Insurance Company, submits that the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to establish the income of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in adopting the notional income in accordance with the guidelines issued by National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). It is further submitted that although the age of the deceased was claimed to be 38 years, Exhibit P9-Aadhaar card discloses the age as 43 years, and therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered the age of the deceased as 43 years for the purpose of applying the appropriate multiplier. It is also submitted that, considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the deceased, Suresh Mane, died in a road traffic accident on 01.08.2018 involving the motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-45/AG-2640, due to the rash and negligent riding by its rider. In the absence of any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 documentary proof of income, the Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month based on the guidelines issued by the NALSA. However, as the accident occurred in the year 2018, and in view of the consistent position taken by this Court based on the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), the notional income of the deceased for the year 2018 is to be taken at Rs.11,750/- per month. Accordingly, the notional income is re-determined at Rs.11,750/- per month, in place of Rs.8,000/- adopted by the Tribunal, for the purpose of computing compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 10. Though the claimants contended that the age of the deceased was 38 years, the evidence on record, particularly Exhibit P9-Aadhaar card, indicates that the deceased was aged 43 years. The Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 43 years, and no interference is called for in this regard. Insofar as the deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, it is the case of the claimants that petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were dependent on the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 income towards personal expenses, as the number of dependents is more than four but less than six. Considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has appropriately applied the multiplier ‘14’. In addition, as per the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 6 SCC 680], considering that the deceased was self employed, an addition of 25% towards future prospects is justified. 11. Hence, the compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ is computed as follows: Rs.11,750 (x) 12 = Rs.1,41,000/-. Rs.1,41,000/- (+) 25% (Rs.35,250/-) = Rs.1,76,250/- Rs.1,76,250/- (-) 1/4th (Rs.44,063/-)= Rs.1,32,188/- Rs.1,32,188/- (x) 14= Rs.18,50,632/-. 12. The Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, the award of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges is on the lower side. As consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation towards loss of estate (i.e., transportation charges) is to be awarded at Rs.15,000/-. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 13. Further, as held in Pranay Sethi (supra), each of the dependents is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head 'consortium'. Accordingly, petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium. In view of the award of consortium to each of the petitioners/claimants, the award of Rs.20,000/- each to petitioner Nos.4 and 5 under the same head is hereby deleted. 14. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others [(2018) 18 SCC 130], the compensation awarded under the heads of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate is liable to be enhanced by 10% for every three years from the date of the accident. As the accident occurred in the year 2018, an enhancement of 20% is warranted under the aforesaid heads. Rs.40,000/- (+) 20% = Rs.48,000/- Rs.48,000/- (x) 5 (dependents) = Rs.2,40,000/- loss of consortium. Rs.15,000/- (+) 20%(Rs.3,000/-) = Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate. Rs.15,000/- (+) 20%(Rs.3,000/-) = Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 15. Hence, the total compensation is re-computed as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 18,50,632/- 2. Funeral expenses 18,000/- 3. Loss of estate 18,000/- 4. Loss of consortium (each of the dependents are entitled to Rs.48,000/- each) 2,40,000/- Total 21,26,632/- 16. The total compensation of Rs.11,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified and re-determined at Rs.21,26,632/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,13,632/-. 17. In view of the above, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award in M.V.C.No.673/2019 dated 29.12.2021 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member of Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi, is modified. (iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.21,26,632/- as - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8273-DB MFA No. 101406 of 2022 against Rs.11,13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The enhanced compensation of Rs.10,13,632/- (Rupees ten lakh thirteen thousand six hundred and thirty-two only) shall be paid with interest at 6% p.a. by the respondent-Insurance company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants- claimants as per the judgment and award of the Tribunal. (vi) The order of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained. Registry shall transmit the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14