- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100048 OF 2024 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102195 OF 2019(MV-D) IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100048 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1. SOMANNA @ SOMASHEKAR S/O SHANKARAPPA HURAKADLI AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, 2. SAROJA W/O SOMASHEKAR HURAKADLI AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, 3. DEEPA D/O SOMASHEKAR HURAKADLI AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O. RATTIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O NINGANAGOUDA BASANAGOUDRA AGE. MAJOR, OCC. DRIVER, 2. HANUMANTHAGOUDA S/O PUTTANAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, BOTH ARE R/O. RATTIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.102195/2019 FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2/2016 ON THE FILE ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HIREKERUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 102195 OF 2019: BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANNAGOUDA S/O NINGANAGOUDA BASANGOUDRA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER, 2.. HANUMANTHAGOUDA S/O PUTTANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, BOTH ARE R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581116. (OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-27/R-6116) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SOMANNA @ SOMASHEKAR S/O SHANKARAPPA HURAKADLI AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 2. SAROJA W/O SOMASHEKAR HURAKADLI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 3. DEEPA D/O SOMASHEKAR HURAKADLI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O: RATTIHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT HIREKERUR AND DISMISS THE SAID CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 THE CROSS OBJECTION AND THE APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The above appeal as well as cross objection are directed against the judgment and award dated 12.03.2019 passed in MVC No.2/2016 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Hirekerur1. 2. MFA No.102195/2019 is filed by the owner and rider of offending motorcycle challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation, whereas the claimants are in cross- objection in MFA Crob No.100048/2025 not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation with a prayer to grant enhanced compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimants, who are the parents and brother of the deceased Pradeepa Hurakadli, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of Pradeepa Hurakadli that took place on 19.12.2010 1 ‘Tribunal’ for short - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 involving two Motorcycles bearing registration Nos.KA-27/U- 2534 and KA-27-R-6116. It is stated that as on the date of accident, deceased was aged 23 years, doing computer service as well as working as mechanic in his own garage, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. 4. On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 & 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their statement of objections denying the entire claim petition averments. It was contended that the alleged accident took place solely due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased rider himself. It was further contended that the deceased Pradeepa was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Thus, prayed for dismissal of claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1-father of the deceased examined himself as PW1 apart from marking the documents as Exs.P1 to P7, whereas the respondents examined four witnesses as RW1 to RW4 and marked six documents as per Exs.R1 to R6. The Tribunal based on the material on record allowed the claim petition in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.20,51,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization on the following heads: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 Loss of dependency Rs.20,16,000/- Loss of love & affection Rs. 20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Transportation of dead body Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total Rs.20,51,000/- ------------------ 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, added 40% of the same towards future prospects, and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, adopted multiplier of 18, taking the age of the deceased as 23 years. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the owner of the offending motorcycle as well as the claimants are before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj Bellakki for the owner of the offending motorcycle as well as learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh M. Kharvi for the claimants and perused the appeal papers along with original records. 8. Sri. Shivaraj Bellakki, learned counsel for the appellant/owner in support of his appeal would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding higher compensation under the head of loss of dependency. He submits that in the absence of oral and documentary evidence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 to substantiate the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.5,500/- per month taking note of the income chart prepared by the KSLSA for the accident of the year 2010. He further submitted that the Tribunal also committed an error in deducting 1/3rd of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50%, since the deceased was a bachelor. It is submitted that the Tribunal also committed an error in holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-27-R-6116, however, the accident took place due to sole negligent on the part of the deceased rider himself. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal filed by the owner by dismissing the cross objection of the claimants. 9. Per contra, Sri. Venkatesh M. Kharvi, learned counsel for the cross-objectors/claimants would contend that the Tribunal taking note of the evidence on record coupled with police records, recorded a finding that due to rash and negligent riding of rider of offending motorcycle, the accident took place, which requires no interference at the hands of this Court. He further contends that the rider of the offending - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license and also the said motorcycle was not insured. Learned counsel would submit that the deceased Pradeepa was doing computer service and also working as mechanic in his own garage, thereby he was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the conventional heads is also on the lower side and same requires to be enhanced appropriately. He adds that no compensation has been awarded on the head of loss of consortium, which the claimants would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- each. Thus, he prays for allowing the cross- objection by dismissing the appeal filed by the owner. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers including the original records of the Tribunal, the only point that would arise for our consideration is, whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation? 11. Our answer to the above point would be in the “negative” for the following reasons: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 12. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the accident resulting in death of deceased Pradeepa involving two Motorcycles bearing registration Nos.KA-27/U-2534 and KA-27- R-6116. Admittedly, the rider of the offending motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Moreover, the offending vehicle was not insured with insurance. The Tribunal taking note of the same, has rightly saddled liability on the owner of the offending motorcycle to pay compensation, which in our view is just and proper. 13. Insofar as quantum of compensation, the claimants examined claimant No.1-father of the deceased as PW1. He states that the deceased Pradeepa was doing computer service and also working as mechanic in his own garage, earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimants have not produced any document to prove the occupation and earning of the deceased. However, the Tribunal assessed monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, which according to us is on the higher side. The accident was of the year 2010. In the absence of any material on record to establish exact income of the deceased, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 accidental claims of the year 2010, normally would assess notional income at Rs.5,500/- per month, taking note of the chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. In the instant case also, in the absence of any material evidence to establish the income of the injured, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine the income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/- p.m. taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA including the minimum wage fixed. The deceased was aged 23 years at time of the accident and multiplier adopted at 18 is proper and correct. The Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. The Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The deceased was a bachelor and therefore, in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another2, deduction would be 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to modified compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under: 2 2009 ACJ 1298 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 Rs.5,500 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.8,31,600/- 14. The Tribunal awarded a meager compensation on the conventional heads and same requires to be modified by awarding appropriately. In terms of decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others3 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others4, each of the claimants would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, besides Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. 15. On re-assessment of compensation, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.8,31,600/- 2. Loss of estate & Funeral expenses Rs. 33,000/- 3. Loss of consortium (Rs.44000x3) Rs.1,32,000/- Total Rs.9,96,600/- 3 2017 (16) SCC 680 4 2018 ACJ 2782 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,96,600/- as against Rs.20,51,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Taking judicial notice of the rate of interest paid on fixed deposits, interest of 7% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 18. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER a) Both appeal as well as cross objection are allowed in part; b) The impugned judgment & award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,96,600/- as against Rs.20,51,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The aforesaid compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. d) The appellant-owner shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) Apportionment, deposit & disbursement shall be made as per award of Tribunal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5685-DB MFA.CROB No. 100048 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 102195 of 2019 f) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with original records. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20