- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5099 MFA No. 102234 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102234 OF 2019 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. GURUSHANTAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA GOTAGODI, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: NIL. 2. SMT.BASAVANNEVVA W/O.GRUSHANTAPPA GOTAGODI, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, BOTH ARE R/O. YATTINAHALLI-581110, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAVI S/O. DHEERAVENDRA DESHAPANDE, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO.10, TARAKESHWAR TEMPLE, HANGAL-581104, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KRISHNA AGENCY BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.98/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HANGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION 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:5099 MFA No. 102234 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This is claimants’ appeal against the judgment and award dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Hangal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.98 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of claimants that their only son Subhas Gurushantappa Gotagodi met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper bearing registration No.KA-27/4980 by its driver on 21.05.2013 at about 1:30 p.m. at Akki-alur village. As a result of which, Subhash sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. He was aged 33 years and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by agriculture. With these reasons prayed to award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5099 MFA No. 102234 of 2019 4. Respondent-insurer denied the contention of the claimant and contended that its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. Owner of the vehicle denied the accident and further contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and in case if he is liable to pay compensation, then respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same. 6. From the rival contentions of both the parties, Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. Claimants to prove their case examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked 11 documents as per Exs.P1 to P11 and closed their evidence. Respondents got marked two documents as per Exs.R1 and R2. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties awarded total compensation of Rs.5,60,000/-. Unsatisfied by the said award, claimants preferred this appeal on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5099 MFA No. 102234 of 2019 9. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Tribunal has not considered income of claimants properly, Tribunal has also added future prospects of the deceased. The amount of compensation awarded under conventional heads are also meager therefore prayed for enhancement of the same. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and further contended that interference in the said findings does not arise and therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Fact of the accident, manner in which accident had taken place, death of Subhas in the accident are not in dispute. The finding given by the Tribunal is not challenged by the respondents therefore there is no need to re-consider the same. 13. Age of the deceased is 34 years as per the School records i.e., Ex.P7, which is noted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Claimants have produced RTC at Exs.P8 and 9. Out of them, in two survey numbers - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5099 MFA No. 102234 of 2019 name of the claimant No.1 is mentioned to an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas. Claimant No.1 is aged about 54 years at the time of accident as per the cause title, therefore it is not the case that after the death of their son, they could not cultivate the land or they have sold the property. Therefore notional income of the deceased is to be assessed. As per the chart prepared by KSLSA, the appropriate income applicable of the victim of an accident of the year 2013, is Rs.7,000/-, accordingly notional monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.7,000/-. As per the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income has been added towards future prospects. Undoubtedly, deceased was unmarried. Therefore 50% of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Multiplier applicable to the fact of the case is 16. On the basis of the said figures, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is re-calculated. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5099 MFA No. 102234 of 2019 14. Compensation under conventional heads shall be calculated as per law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi i.e., under the head of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Accordingly, the following amount of compensation is awarded to the claimants: i. Loss of dependency :Rs.9,40,000.00 ii. Loss of consortium :Rs. 80,000.00 iii. Funeral expenses :Rs. 15,000.00 iv. Loss of estate :Rs. 15,000.00 Total :Rs.10,50,000.00 15. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rs.10,50,000/- less Rs.5,60,000/-). 16. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is insurer of the said vehicle. Both are jointly and severely available to pay the compensation. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the question is answered partly in the affirmative. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5099 MFA No. 102234 of 2019 18. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Hangal in MVC No.98 of 2013 is modified. iii. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of the award. v. Registry is directed to send back TCR along with copy of this order to the Tribunal. vi. Both the claimants are entitled for equal apportionment in the compensation amount. Out of the amount enhanced, the Tribunal shall release 70% - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5099 MFA No. 102234 of 2019 of the enhanced amount in favour of the claimants and remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of 2 years. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38