- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7568 MFA No. 100497 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100497 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. 1A. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE DYMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LR’S., VADDARA THIPPANNA S/O LATE DYMAPPA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: 6TH WARD, MARIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT (BROTHER OF THE DECEASED). 1B. 1C. VADDARA RUDRAPPA @ RUDRA S/O LATE DYMAPPA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: MARIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT (BROTHER OF THE DECEASED). VADDARA THIPPAMMA D/O LATE VADDARA DYMAPPA, AGE: 24 YEARS, UNMARRIED, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL BROTHER VADDARA THIPPANNA S/O LATE DYMAPPA, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: MARRIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT (SISTER OF THE DECEASED). … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7568 MFA No. 100497 of 2014 AND: 1. M/S. AHAMADABAD BENGAL ROAD LINES, 1295/1 KAPASHERA VILLAGE, OPP. D.C. OFFICE, NEAR FUN FOOD, NEW DELHI (OWNER OF LORRY REG. NO. HR-38/G-4677). 2. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PARVATHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, BALLARI. 3. VAZEER SINGH S/O JAS RAM, LORRY DRIVER REG. NO.HR-38/G-4677, C/O. AGARVAL ROAD CARRIER AND FLEET OWNER AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR, MAIN ROAD, KARIGANUR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, DIST: BALLARI (DRIVER OF THE LORRY). … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 AND R3-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.375/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.C.F., HOSPET. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7568 MFA No. 100497 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 22.03.2013 passed in MVC NO.375/2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.C.F., Hospet (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. The occurrence of accident, death of the deceased in a road traffic accident, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7568 MFA No. 100497 of 2014 5. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 6. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- towards loss of estate and towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- on other heads, such as funeral expenses and transportation of dead body etc. Thus, awarded totally of Rs.2,41,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. The appellants/claimants are the brothers and sister of the deceased. The claimants are not dependent on the minor boy; therefore, the Tribunal has granted compensation under the heads loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of dead body. The Tribunal has taken annual income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- and deducted 1/3rd of the amount as personal and living expenses and applied the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’. Thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- under the head loss of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7568 MFA No. 100497 of 2014 estate, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. 8. As per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court, 1/4th of the income is to be taken into consideration holding Rs.13,000/- annually by adopting multiplier ‘16’. If this is considered, then the compensation would be less under the head loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Therefore, whatever the compensation was awarded by the Tribunal is found to be just and reasonable. Hence, there is no need to make interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18