- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14302 MFA No. 101452 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101452 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: GUDUR, TQ: HUNAGUND, NOW AT HANAMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2. KUMARIN RADHA D/O. YALLAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. 3. KUMARI RUKMINI D/O. YALLAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. 4. KUMAR VEERESH S/O. YALLAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS. 5. KUMARI SAVITA D/O. YALLAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS. APPELLANT NO.4 AND 5 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14302 MFA No. 101452 of 2016 NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN i.e., APPELLANT NO.1, SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA HANCHINAL. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.B. PATIL MADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. GADDEPPA KOLUR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, NWKRTC, ILKAL DEPOT, ILKAL, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20/10/2011, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, YELBURGA, AT KUSHTAGI, IN MVC NO.570/2008, BY ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14302 MFA No. 101452 of 2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri. A. B. Patil Madapur learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri. S. C. Bhuti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is outcome of the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yelburga at Kushtagi, in MVC 570 of 2008 dated 20.10.2011. This is a claimants’ appeal. 3. The first appellant being the wife, appellants 2 to 5 being the minor children of the deceased Yallappa Hanchinal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’ for brevity), who died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2008, filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.11,60,000/- in total. The tribunal through the impugned order granted a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14302 MFA No. 101452 of 2016 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal totally erred in assessing the compensation which the appellants are entitled to. Learned counsel states that the tribunal having taken the age of the deceased as 30 years as on the date of accident, ought to have applied the appropriate multiplier ‘17’, but it applied ‘16’ as multiplier. Learned counsel further submits that the dependents are five in number that is wife and 4 children. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, 1/4th of the earnings are required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, which he would have incurred for himself had he been alive. But the tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the earnings erroneously. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day by doing goundy 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14302 MFA No. 101452 of 2016 work. But, the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel states that the accident occurred in the year 2008 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking the notional income as Rs.4,250/- per month for settlement of claims and at least said figure, should have been adopted by the tribunal. Learned counsel also submits that the tribunal failed to add future prospects. 6. Learned counsel who represents respondent no.2 seeks the Court to dispose of the matter on merits. 7. Having considered the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,250/- per month. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged around 30 years by the date of accident. Therefore as rightly contented, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘17’ as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Varma's case. Also the dependents being five - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14302 MFA No. 101452 of 2016 in number, the deduction should be 1/4th of the total earnings. Further as the deceased died at the age of 30 years, 40% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi2. Thus the compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive towards loss of dependency is as under: Notional monthly income Rs.4,250.00 Annual Income Rs.51,000.00 On adding 40% towards future prospects Rs.71,400.00 On deducting 1/4th towards personal living expenses Rs.53,550.00 Loss of dependency on applying appropriate multiplier ‘17’ Rs.9,10,350.00 8. Thus it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,10,350/- towards loss of dependency. 9. Also the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14302 MFA No. 101452 of 2016 estate. Further the first appellant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. Appellants 2 to 5 being the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. Thus the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive is as under: Heads Amount in Rs. Towards loss of dependency 9,10,350.00 Towards Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Towards loss of estate 15,000.00 Towards loss of spousal consortium 40,000.00 Towards loss of parental consortium 40,000.00 TOTAL 10,20,350.00 10. By all the above discussion, it is therefore clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,20,350/- as compensation. However, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- only. Hence the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14302 MFA No. 101452 of 2016 Yelburga at Kushtagi, through orders in MVC 570 of 2008 dated 20.10.2011 is enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.10,20,350/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, except for the period of delay of 1563 days as per orders in IA No.1 of 2017. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (v) The apportionment made by the tribunal applies to enhanced sum as well. (vi) Appellant No.1 is permitted to withdraw her share of the enhanced sum on deposit. (vii) Appellants 2 to 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares along with their share of interest on production of sufficient proof that they attained the age of majority. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31