- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5474 MFA No. 100234 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100234 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, IN THE APPEAL REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUMTAJ W/O. ABDULSAB WALAD @ BAGAWAN, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KALADGI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. ABDULSAB S/O. ABBASAB WALAD @ BAGAWAN, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC: FRUIT BUSINESS, R/O. KALADGI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. KUM. SABANA D/O. ABDULSAB WALAD @ BAGAWAN, AGE 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KALADGI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. C. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE MVC NO.515/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE MEMBER, MACT-II, BAGALKOT AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2016 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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:5474 MFA No. 100234 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Heard the arguments of both the sides. 2. This appeal is by the respondent-Corporation (owner of the bus) challenging the judgment and award dated 19.10.2016 in MVC No.515 of 2014 on the file of MACT-II, Bagalkot (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The learned advocate for appellant submits that this petition is filed by the legal heirs of deceased who died due to the accident by involvement of bus belonging to appellant. While assessing compensation the MACT added 50% of income of deceased towards future prospects. Deceased was not government servant or having fixed salary income. He was aged about 22 years. Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month. But instead of adding 40% of his income towards future prospects, added 50% that is the main grounds of challenge. 4. The learned advocate for appellant further contended that there are other grounds of appeal, but in view of development in the law by Judicial precedents, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5474 MFA No. 100234 of 2017 these grounds do not survive. Hence dispose of the appeal on that ground. 5. Learned advocate for respondents submits that Tribunal has passed proper order based on material available and interference in the said judgment do not arise and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 6. Facts of accident and death of Altaf due to said accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal while assessing compensation under the head loss of dependency assessed income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month. His age was 22 years, multiplier as 18 and deducted 50% as his income towards personal expenses, since he was unmarried. 7. Tribunal added 50% of income of deceased towards future prospects. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others Vs.Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 and added 50% of income towards future prospects. Hon’ble Apex Court (Constitutional Bench) in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra), guidelines are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5474 MFA No. 100234 of 2017 given regarding adding of future prospects to the income of person who died in the vehicle accident and who had no fixed salary. As per said guidelines 40% of income shall be added of deceased below the age of 40 years. In this case, Tribunal has taken age of the deceased as 22 years. Hence 40% of his income has to be added towards future prospects instead of 50%. Accordingly amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency has to be the re-calculated, by considering above figures i.e., Rs.7,000/-+40% x 12 x 18 x 50%=Rs.10,68,400/-. 8. Admittedly claimants have not filed any appeal against impugned judgment. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,68,400/- towards loss of dependency (i.e., Rs.75,600/- lesser than the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency). Accordingly the Tribunal award needs to be modified. 9. For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5474 MFA No. 100234 of 2017 ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.10.2016 in MVC No.515 of 2014 on the file of MACT-II, Bagalkot is modified. iii. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,68,400/- as against Rs.11,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. iv. Remaining portion of the order is not disturbed. v. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. vi. Send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8