- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2418 MFA No. 102129 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102129 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NWKRTC, HAVERI, REP: BY DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SANNAGOUDA S/O. SHIVAPPA LAKKAMMANAVAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MALAVALLI, TAL: SHIKARIPURA, DIST: SHIVAMOGA-577201. 2. MOUNESHA S/O. SANNAGOUDA, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MALAVALLI, TAL: SHIKARIPURA, DIST: SHIVAMOGA-577201. 3. RAKESHA S/O. SANNAGOUDA, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MALAVALLI, TAL: SHIKARIPURA, DIST: SHIVAMOGA-577201, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER RESPONDENT NO.1 4. SANGAPPA @ SANGAMESHA SHARANAPPA HUBBALLI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: NWKRTC HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2418 MFA No. 102129 of 2018 5. THE DEPOT MANAGER, NWKRTC, TALUK HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 – MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HIREKERUR IN MVC NO.12/2013 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND ETC.,. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The KSRTC has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 04.12.2017, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hirekerur, in MVC No.12/2013, on various grounds, but during the arguments confined only to the quantum of compensation. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. The occurrence of accident, death of the deceased Neelamma W/o.Sannagouda Lakkammanavar in a road - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2418 MFA No. 102129 of 2018 traffic accident, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case. 4. In this case, the tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency. 8,40,000 2. Towards loss of love and affection. 50,000 3. Towards funeral expenses. 10,000 4. Towards transportation of dead body. 10,000 5. Towards loss of consortium/estate. 30,000 Total: 9,40,000 5. Learned counsel for the appellant KSRTC submitted that age of the deceased was 50 years, but not 40 years. Therefore considering the age as 50 years, adding 25% of income towards loss of future prospects loss of compensation is to be calculated, but not 40% as held by the tribunal, and based on the evidence deposed by claimant No.1 that the deceased was aged 50 years old. Further submitted that the deceased is wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant No.2 and 3 and naturally the children are dependants on the income of father, but not the mother. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2418 MFA No. 102129 of 2018 Therefore, half of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, on all these grounds he prays for modification of the judgment and award. 6. In the present case, in the post-mortem report the age of the deceased is mentioned as 40 years. In oral evidence the claimant might have stated 50 years, but the doctor upon seeing the physical feature of the dead body of the deceased has assessed the age of the deceased as 40 years, which is found to be correct. The age mentioned by the qualified doctor while conducting autopsy on the dead body is relevant than the oral evidence of the claimant. Therefore, the tribunal is correct in holding the age of the deceased as 40 years. Accordingly added the income of the petitioner towards loss of future prospects, according to the age of the deceased is also found to be correct. 7. The deceased is the mother, but the mother is also making contribution to the family though she can be said as non earning member in the family. But her contribution being mother to the family is immense. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2418 MFA No. 102129 of 2018 contribution cannot be counted in monetary terms always, but also service of a mother to the family is to be recognized since she has devoted her life to the family. Therefore, considering the deceased being mother and claimants being husband and children, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses is correct. 8. The accident is caused in the year 2012. As per notional chart, prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, the income ought to have been taken at Rs.6,500/-. The tribunal has taken only Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore the tribunal has taken lesser income resulting into award of lesser amount of compensation under the head loss of dependency. Further, towards other conventional heads also the quantum of compensation awarded is lesser side. But the claimants have not preferred any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Therefore, whatever compensation awarded by the tribunal is found to be just and proper and correct, which needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal filed by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2418 MFA No. 102129 of 2018 KSRTC is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 10. The amount in deposit made by the KSRTC shall be transmitted to the tribunal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2