- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6070 MFA No. 102640 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 102640 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. RAMU AATPATKAR, AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MOLE, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SIDARAI S/O. RAMU AATPATKAR, AGE 33 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOLE, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AMASIDDA RAMU ATAPATKAR, AGE 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOLE, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE). 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTED, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001, (INWURER OF MOTOR CYCLE). 3. CFN GANAPATI S. S. S/O. SIDRAY, AGE 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MOLE, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001 (OWNER OF NEW PASSION PRO MOTOR CYCLE). 4. THE BRNACH MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I. LOAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RPD CROSS, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590001 (INSURER OF NEW PASSION PRO MOTOR CYCLE) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE SERVED) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6070 MFA No. 102640 of 2016 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE REORDS HEAR THE PARTIE AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT-IV, BELAGAVI, IN MVC NO.622/2012, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 4. 2. This appeal is field by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 29th April 2013, passed in MVC No.622/2012, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the claimants that on 21.12.2011, the deceased Ramu was travelling as a pillion - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6070 MFA No. 102640 of 2016 rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/R- 6636, which was being ridden by one Gopal. An accident occurred near Mole cross on Kidagedi-Aigali Road involving two motorcycles. As a result, the deceased Ramu sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the said injuries. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of accident, was an agriculturist, and was earning approximately Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. In addition, he was engaged in milk vending, through which he earned about Rs.3,000/- p.m. The claimants, being the wife and son of the deceased, were dependent on his income. On these grounds, the claimants have sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/T-6636. Respondent No.3 is the owner and respondent No.4 is the insurer of new Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Cahssis No.MBLHA10EWBGJ31393 and Engine No.HA10EDBGJ11280. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6070 MFA No. 102640 of 2016 6. Respondents have filed objections and denied the contentions of the claimants. The Tribunal, after conducting the trial and hearing the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the rider of both motorcycle and attributed their contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50. The Tribunal further held that the policy of insurance held by respondent No.1 was an “Act only” Policy, and therefore, the liability towards the pillion rider was not covered under the said policy. Consequently, the Tribunal absolved respondent No.2 of any liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal directed that the remaining 50% of the compensation be paid by respondent Nos.3 and 4. The claimants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 7. Heard the arguments of both sides. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident is of the year 2011, though claimants have contended that the deceased was earning Rs.3,60,000/- per - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6070 MFA No. 102640 of 2016 annum, but the Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month, which is erroneous. He also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded on other heads are on the lower side and prays for enhancement of the same. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents support and justifies the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Accepting the self serving statement of PW1, there are no independent materials on record to establish the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the national income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is on lower side. As per the Chart prepared by the KSLSA, the notional income of a victim of an accident occurred in the year 2011 is Rs.6,000/- per month. The same could be applied to the facts of present case. The deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of accident and hence the question of adding future prospects does not arise. It is undisputed that the applicable multiplier is 9. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6070 MFA No. 102640 of 2016 Since the deceased left behind two dependents, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Based on the above figures, the amount of compensation under the head loss of dependency would be assessed. 11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.14,000 towards medical expenses. However, the amounts of compensation awarded under conventional heads is required to be reassessed in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the judgment of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the amounts of compensation are recalculated as follows: 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 9 x 2/3) Rs.4,32,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.14,000/- 3. Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Rs.80,000/- 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6070 MFA No. 102640 of 2016 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Funeral expenses and transportation of the body Rs.15,000/- TOTAL Rs.5,56,000/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Triubnal Rs.3,68,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs.1,88,000/- 13. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date petition till its realization. 14. In light of the above, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 29th April 2013, passed in MVC No.622/2012, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Belgaum is modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6070 MFA No. 102640 of 2016 (iv) The remaining portion of the order of the Tribunal is not disturbed. (v) Respondent No.1 shall pay 50% of enhanced amount of compensation and the remaining 50% shall be deposited by respondent No.4 within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of the award. (vi) The Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith. (vii) The Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44