- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103143 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. REKHA ABHIJIT DEWAN, AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. KUMAR SOYAM ABHIJIT DEWAN, AGE 03 YEARS, OCC: NIL. 3. KUMAR SAKASHAM ABHIJIT DEWAN, AGE 01 YEARS, 05 MONTHS, OCC: NIL, SINCE APPELLANTS NO-2 & 3 ARE MINORS, R/BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER, MINOR GURDIAN, APPELLANT NO-1. 4. SHRI. ANANT @ ANAND ANNAPPA DEWAN, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC: NIL. 5. SMT. SHANTA ANANT @ ANAND DEWAN, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. MAHAVEER NAGAR, ANAGOL, BELGAUM. - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. RAJEEVAN BHASKARAN KODUMADAINI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KRISHNA DHAM BUILDING, N.B-108, EVER SHINE CITY, GOKHIWAE VASAI ROAD (E), VASAI, DIST: THANE (MAHARASHTRA). Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM. 3. MARUTI ANAND DEWAN, AGE MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. MAHAVEER NAGAR, ANAGOL, BELGAUM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 & R3 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.2379/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, AT: BELGAUM, DATED 25.09.2014 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 25.09.2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 2379/2013 by the I Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & AMACT, Belgaum [for short, ‘the Tribunal’]. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 2. It is the case of the claimants that one Abhijit Anand @ Anand Dewan, husband of the first claimant, father of second and third claimants, and the son of fourth and fifth claimants, met with an accident on 22.09.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-04-DD-7445, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It is further contended that deceased was aged about 27 years, he was hale and healthy and working as a Mechanic in Madan Automobiles, Tilakwadi, Belgaum and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Deceased was contributing his earning to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 maintenance of his family. With these reasons the claimants have sought to award compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. 3. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the driver of the offending lorry. Respondent No.3 is the owner and respondent No.4 is the insurer of the motorcycle. Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed their respective objections. Respondent No.1 denied all the petition averments and stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2. If respondent No.1 is held liable to pay compensation then respondent No.2 be directed to pay the compensation. 4. Respondent No.4 has also denied petition averments. It was further stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. Therefore, driver of the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident. Its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the lorry. 5. Respondent No.3 has contended that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and the rider of the motorcycle was not responsible for the accident. Respondent No.4 has also stated the very same view and contended that accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the lorry and the owner and the insurer of the lorry was responsible for payment of compensation. 6. The Tribunal has framed necessary issues. The claimants to prove their case examined claimant No.1 as PW1 and marked 10 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.10. Respondents have not led evidence. The policy of insurance of offending lorry is marked as Ex.R.1. 7. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 lorry by its driver. The Tribunal assessed age of the deceased as 28 years, his earning as Rs.8,000/- per month, added 30% of the same towards future prospects; applied multiplier of 17, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and assessed compensation. The Tribunal has awarded the following amount of compensation. 1. Loss of dependency 15,91,200.00 2. Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 50,000.00 3. Loss of estate 10,000.00 4. Loss of love & affection of a father to Petitioner 2 and 3 at Rs.50,000/- each 1,00,000.00 5. Loss of filial love & affection of a son to petitioners 4 & 5 at Rs.10,000/- each 20,000.00 6. Transportation of dead body & funeral expenses 30,000.00 Total 18,01,200.00 Claimants found the said amount is inadequate filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants produced copy of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 103242/2014 (MV) decided on 14.07.2015. The impugned - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 judgment herein was challenged by the respondent No.2 of this case in M.F.A. No. 103242/2014, contending that assessment of the income by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- per month is incorrect and the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month. The said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court holding that “in the instant case, the salary certificate shows that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Notwithstanding the same, the Tribunal held his income at Rs.8,000/- per month. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the income as held by the Tribunal, is not even based on Ex.P6. It has applied its mind for reducing it to Rs.8,000/- per month. We find no error in the same. The income as held by the Tribunal is on the lower side. We do not find the contention of the insurer, that the income as held is excessive, could be accepted. Consequently, we find no good ground to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed”. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 9. Heard arguments. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.8,000/- per month. The claimants have produced salary certificate of the deceased at Ex.P.6 wherein it is clearly mentioned that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants have also produced six photographs at Ex.P.8 showing the deceased was serving as a Mechanic in the said garage. They are sufficient to believe that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants have also produced the driving licence of the deceased at Ex.P.9. The Tribunal has not considered these facts. The Division Bench of this Court in the above said appeal has observed that taking of income at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month is on the lower side. Therefore the appeal filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the specific observation made in the said judgment, that salary of Rs.8,000/- accepted by the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 Tribunal is on the lower side. This Court may consider Ex.P.6 and hold that income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. 11. He further contends that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in [2017] 13 SCR 100, 40% of the income of the deceased ought to have been added towards future prospects. But, the Tribunal though relied on the judgment of the Apex Court, but it has taken future prospects at the rate of 30%, which is erroneous. He also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded towards loss of estate and towards loss of consortium are on the lower side. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of the same. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2, it is also observed that Rs.8,000/- income assessed by the Tribunal is proper and is not excessive. He further - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 contends that non examination of author of Ex.P.6, it cannot be considered for assessment of the income. He further fairly stated that as per the case of Pranay Sethi, (supra), future prospects shall be added at the rate of 40%. However, the Tribunal has taken it as 30% which needs to be considered. He has also stated that the compensation awarded under other heads needs to be reconsidered. With these reasons he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that he is a formal party in this case and the Tribunal has not fastened liability on respondents No. 3 and 4 to pay the compensation. 14. From the above contentions the following points emerge for determination: 1] Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? 2] What order? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 15. Point No.1: It is the consistent case of the claimants that deceased was working in the garage and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. They have produced salary certificate as well as photographs. The salary certificate is issued by one Bajaj Services, Authorized Service Centre for Bajaj Auto Limited, wherein it is stated that deceased was working as a Mechanic for about four years prior to 21.09.2013 and was drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The said certificate was issued on 07.11.2013. Admittedly claimants have not examined the author of the said document and not produced any corroborate materials in support of the said document. Therefore only on the basis of Ex.P.6 which is not proved, the Court cannot consider income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The photographs are produced at Ex.P.8 on the basis of which the Court or the Tribunal cannot hold that he was serving as a Mechanic in the said garage. The claimants have also produced driving licence of the deceased showing that the deceased was authorized to drive the transport vehicle which was in force from the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 year 2005 to 2025. Therefore the income assessed by the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month has to be confirmed. 16. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the victim of an accident of the year 2013 is to be assessed at Rs.7,000/-. However, the Tribunal has considered and held that income of the deceased shall be Rs.8,000/- and the Division Bench of this Court though observed that income assessed by the Tribunal though on the lower side but accepted the same and not re-assessed the award passed by the Tribunal. Thereby rejected the contention of the insurer that it was excessive. Income of the deceased cannot be considered on the basis of Ex.P.6, since the said document is not proved. In view of the said facts, income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.8,000/- per month is accepted. 17. Further, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% of his income towards future prospects on the basis of law laid - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi. On that basis, the compensation has to be recalculated under the head loss of dependency. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation to be awarded under other heads shall be re-calculated as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra which is tenable. Accordingly the compensation is re-calculated: 1. Loss of dependency [Rs.8,000/- + 40% x 12 x 17 x1/4] 17,13,000.00 2. Loss of estate 15,000.00 3. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 4. Loss of consortium 2,00,000.00 Total 19,43,600.00 Award of Tribunal 18,01,200.00 Enhancement 1,42,400.00 Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative. 19. For the above discussions, the following order is passed. ORDER [1] The appeal is allowed in part. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5352 MFA No. 103143 of 2014 [2] The impugned judgment and award dated 25.09.2014 in M.V.C. No. 2379/2013 passed by the I Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & AMACT, Belagavi, is modified. [3] The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,42,400/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment of entire enhanced amount of compensation. Respondent No.2 shall deposit enhanced amount of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of award. Apportionment, deposit and release of the enhanced compensation amount shall be as per the order of the Tribunal. Send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN