- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101030 OF 2021 (MV) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DINKAR KRISHNA KALANTRE, AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. SMT. SAUBAI DINKAR KALANTRE, AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 3. MISS POOJA DINKAR KALANTRE, AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SOUNDALAGA, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591201. 4. SRI. BALU SAKHARAM SALGAR, AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NANDANI, TALUK. SHIROL, DIST. KOLHAPUR, PIN-416102. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHIKODI IN M.V.C. NO. 226/2017 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is filed by the insurer against the judgment and award dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned AMACT and Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Chikkodi [for short, the ‘Tribunal’] in M.V.C. No. 226/2017. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on 02.07.2016 around 11.15 A.M, one Pravin Dinakar Kalantre (deceased) met with accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. MH-09-CA-1623 by its driver near Bugate Alur Village on Nippani-Gandhinglaj road. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the injuries. Claimants No.1 and 2 are his parents and claimant No.3 is his sister. They were depending on his earnings. Said Pravin was a Driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He was also doing Centring work and earning Rs.10,000/- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 per month. In all, earning Rs.25,000/- per month. With these reasons they prayed to award compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their separate written statements denying the contentions of the claimants and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of claimants. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and award, awarded compensation of Rs.19,17,000/- by assessing age of the deceased as 21 years, his income at Rs.8,750/- per month, added 40% of income towards future prospects, deducted 1/3 of it towards personal expenses, applied multiplier ‘18’ and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. 5. The main grievance of the appellant-insurer is that admittedly deceased was a bachelor and the Tribunal - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 ought to have deducted 50% of the income instead of 1/3 towards personal expenses. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants vehemently contends that accident is of the year 2016, deceased was a driver, claimants have produced the LMV driving licence of the deceased which indicates that deceased was a skilled labourer and therefore his income has to be considered not as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority but more than the said amount and whatever amount awarded by the Tribunal may be considered towards additional income to be taken and appeal be dismissed. 7. 7. The learned counsel for appellant-insurer submits that there is no evidence regarding earnings of the deceased. Only on production of LMV driving licence, it cannot be assessed that deceased was a skilled labourer and earning as claimed in the claim petition. The Tribunal has considered the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and awarded the compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 Therefore there is no question of enhancing the income of the deceased on the basis of LMV driving licence. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at paragraph No. 19 considered that claimants have not produced documents except the LMV driving licence to prove that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- by driving and Rs.10,000/- by centring work. The Tribunal by considering the Minimum Wages Act, assessed income as Rs.8,750/- per month. Even the claimants have not examined the employer of the deceased to prove his income. Therefore, merely holding of a driving licence cannot be a ground to believe that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as claimed in the petition. Therefore whatever income assessed by the Tribunal is justified. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Mamatajabi & Ors. Vs. The Managing Director, NWKRTC decided on 29.07.2022 in M.F.A. No. 102446/2019 c/w M.F.A. No. 102241/2019 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 wherein the income of the driver of the heavy transport vehicle was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, he prays to award just compensation. 9. The said contention cannot be considered for two reasons. Firstly, there is no appeal by the claimants and secondly, the facts of the present case and the case relied by the claimants, are different. Moreover, the judgment cannot be followed if it differs from facts of the present case. No law is laid down in the afore judgment that, in case of death of a driver, income has to be assessed at Rs.16,000/- per month in all the cases. Under such circumstances, the above judgment is not applicable. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants further submits that this Court has jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 22 and 33 CPC to reconsider the same and pass orders even though no appeal is filed. There is no dispute regarding the jurisdiction or authority of this Court to consider the said contention. But when there is injustice caused by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 trial Court or Tribunal, only in such cases the Court can exercise its extraordinary power under Order 41 Rule 22 and 33 CPC and reconsider the case. 11. The Tribunal in this case has considered the materials available on record. Claimants did not even examine the employer of the deceased to prove his income. There was no oral or documentary evidence to show that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Driver. Under such circumstances mere production of driving licence does not lead to a presumption that such driver would draw a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore without acceptable materials this Court cannot hold that deceased was earning of Rs.15,000/- per month. This Court cannot invoke provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 or order 41 Rule 33 CPC for enhancement of the compensation when there are no sufficient materials available to consider the same. Therefore, the said contention is rejected. Undisputedly deceased was unmarried. Claimants are his parents and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 sister. Hence 50% of income shall be deducted towards personal expenses as held in the case of Sarala Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,23,000/- [Rs.8,750/- +40%x12x18x½] towards loss of dependency. 12. The Tribunal has awarded just compensation towards other heads and on reconsideration they do not warrant interference. Thus, the claimants are entitled for following compensation: 1. Loss of dependency 13,23,000.00 2. Loss of consortium 1,20,000.00 3. Loss of estate 15,000.00 4. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total 14,73,000.00 Award of Tribunal 19,17,000.00 Amount reduced 4,44,000.00 For the aforesaid discussions, the following order is passed. ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5735 MFA No. 101030 of 2021 Judgment and award dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned AMACT and Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Chikkodi, is modified. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,76,000/- as against Rs.19,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per month from the date of petition till its realization. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within 6 weeks from the date of drawing of award. Registry is directed to send back the trial court records along with copy of this judgment. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Apportionment of the compensation shall be as awarded by the Tribunal with modification that, out of the compensation amount apportioned to each claimants 75% shall be released in favour of the claimants and 25% shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1