- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102469 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SHIVAJI S/O. DATTU DALAVI, AGE 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. KUMAR. SHREYAS S/O. SHIVAJI DALAVI, AGE 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR, R/BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN, NATURAL FATHER APPELLANT NO.1, BOTH ARE R/O MAIN ROAD, SULAGE (H) VILLAGE, TQ: DIST. BELAGAVI-591108. - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, M.S.R.T.C., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NEAR S.T. STAND, KOLHAPUR-416001, STATE OF MAHARASTRA. - RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.2227/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AT: BELAGAVI, DATED 05.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 2227/2017 dated 05.07.2018 passed by the XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short, the ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of the compensation. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 09.08.2017 around 1.00 p.m. one Smt. Vandana Shivaji Dalavi (deceased) along with other three persons were traveling in Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘MSRTC’) bus bearing Reg. No. MH-14-BT-5048. The driver of the bus was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against parked tempo bearing Reg. No. MH-05-AM-1185, as a result of which Smt. Vandana and two other passengers sustained grievous injuries. Smt. Vandana succumbed to the injuries on the spot. She - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 was aged about 50 years, working as a Coolie, earning Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing her entire earning to the family. Due to her untimely death family members are suffering. With these reasons the claimants sought for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. Respondent-Corporation is the owner of the offending bus. It has denied all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal has framed necessary issues considering the rival contentions of the parties. The Tribunal clubbed this case along with two other connected cases and recorded common evidence. Claimants together examined in all three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 12 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.12. After hearing both parties, Tribunal held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal assessed age of the deceased at 50 years; her income as Rs.9,000/- per month, deducted - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 50% towards personal expenses, applied multiplier ‘13’ and awarded compensation of Rs.7,02,000/- towards loss of dependency and awarded following compensation. 1. Loss of dependency 7,02,000.00 2. Loss of estate 15,000.00 3. Loss of consortium 40,000.00 4. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total 7,72,000.00 5. The learned Advocate for appellants contends that deceased was married to claimant No.1. However, the Tribunal deducted 50% of her income towards personal expenses. The Tribunal has also not added future prospects as per the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and added 25% of the income towards future prospects since the deceased was aged about 50 years and exact date of birth is not known to the family members. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium is also on the lower side. There are two members in the family, i.e., husband and a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 son. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Therefore prayed to re- assess the compensation. 6. Learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation submits that whatever amount awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and does not call for interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The only question arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? 9. The fact of accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal after assessment of the evidence held that accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the bus which is not challenged by the respondent. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 10. The claimants contended that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month but the Tribunal has not accepted the same and considered at Rs.9,000/- per month since there are no materials produced to prove her income. The said income appears to be on lower side. To assess the notional income it is necessary to take assistance of chart of notional income prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. According to it the notional income of a victim of an accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/- per month. The same could be applied to the present case. 11. The Tribunal has deducted 50% of the same towards personal expenses. Undisputedly deceased was a married woman. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses when the deceased was a married lady. In addition to that, there are two dependents and one of them is a minor son. Considering - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 these facts the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses. 12. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects. Admittedly there are no documents to show date of birth of the deceased. On the basis of postmortem report and contents of the claim petition, age of the deceased was considered as 50 years. In the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra) between age of 40 to 50 years, to consider future prospects, 25% of the income has to be added. If more than 50 years, then said percentage is 10%. If a victim of an accident has few months above 50 years then what is the percentage of income shall be added towards future prospects is a question to be answered. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sri Shubham Shivaji Chougla and others rendered in M.F.A. No. 100118/2022 dated 18.03.2024, held that if victim of an accident is around 50 years and not reached age of 51 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 years, then future prospects of 25% income could be added to the income of deceased who died in an accident. Same principle could be applied to this case and 25% of income of deceased shall be added towards future prospects. Undisputedly, the multiplier applicable is ‘13’. On the basis of said figures, the compensation towards loss of dependency shall be calculated at Rs.13,32,552/- (Rs.10,250/- + 25% x 12 x 13 x 1/3). 13. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the claimants are entitled for compensation under conventional heads. Thus the appellants are entitled for following compensation: 1. Loss of dependency 13.32,552.00 2. Loss of consortium 80,000.00 3. Loss of estate 15,000.00 4. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total Rounded of to 14,42,552.00 14,43,000.00 Award of Tribunal 7,72,000.00 Enhancement 6,71,000.00 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 For the aforesaid discussion question raised is answered in the affirmative and pass the following order. ORDER (1) Appeal is allowed in part. (2) The judgment and award dated 05.07.2018 passed in M.V.C. No. 2227/2017 passed by the XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is modified. (3) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.6,71,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The respondent shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of award. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712 MFA No. 102469 of 2019 Apportionment, deposit and release of the enhanced compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. Send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35