- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103442 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. TASNEEM W/O. FIERDOOS KONNUR AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SUBHASH NAGAR, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI. 2. KUMAR NIHAL S/O. FIERDOOS KONNUR SINCE DIED ON 01.01.2016, APPELLANT NO.1 AND 3 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF A2 3. KUMAR FAIZAN S/O. FIERDOOS KONNUR AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O: SUBHASH NAGAR, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1. 4. SMT. ABIDA BEGUM W/O. GAFUR AHMED KONNUR AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: SUBHASH NAGAR, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVARAJ B.C. AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.27 15:03:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 R/O: NO.46, 12TH CROSS, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, NEAR MURALI TENT HOUSE, BENGALURU. 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE DISPENSED WITH-R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.306/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HUBBALLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The appellants are before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 31.10.2015, passed in M.V.C. No.306/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubli, (for short, 8the Tribunal9), praying for enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Fierdoos Konnur, approached the Tribunal by filing claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of husband of the first claimant, i.e. Firdoose Konnur, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 14.03.2012 involving truck bearing No.KA-02/AA-7359 and car bearing No.KA-25/Z2768. It is claimed that the deceased - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 was aged 46 years and he was earning ¹15,00,000/- to ¹20,00,000/- per annum and was an income tax assessee. 4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed objection statement denying the claim petition averments. It is further stated that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of the driver of the car. The insurer also denied the income of the deceased as stated by the claimants. It is also contended that the drivers of both the vehicles had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. 5. In support of the claim of claimants, PW1 to PW3 were examined apart from marking Exs.P1 to P102 whereas respondent3Insurance Company examined RW1 and marked Exs.R1 to R7. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on record, awarded total compensation of ¹25,20,120/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the following heads:- 1) Loss of dependency : Rs.24,00,120/- (Rs.13,334/-x12x15) 2) Loss of Consortium : Rs. 30,000/- 3) Loss of love and affection For petitioner No.2 to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 4 equally : Rs. 60,000/- 4) Funeral expenditures : Rs. 25,000/- 5) Transportation expenditure of deceased : Rs. 5,000/- Total : Rs. 25,20,120/- 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at ¹20,000/-, adopted multiplier of 15 and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants are in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel Sri Siddappa Sajjan for Sri M.M. Khannur for appellants and learned counsel Sri R.R. Mane for respondent No.2-Insruance Company. Perused the entire appeal papers including original records. 8. Learned counsel Sri Siddappa Sajjan for the claimants-appellants would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in assessing the income of the deceased notionally at ¹20,000/- per month, ignoring the income tax returns placed on record, i.e. Exs.P14 to P102. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 assessed the income of the deceased taking into account Ex.P17-income tax returns for the 2009-10, Ex.P23-income tax returns for the year 2010-11 and Ex.P40-income returns for the year 2011-12. Learned counsel would submit that the total income of the deceased for the year 2009-10 was ¹8,96,712/- including rental income of ¹1,59,500/-. For the year 2010-11 the total income of the deceased was ¹11,44,875/- including the rental income of ¹3,93,360 and for 2011-12, the total income of the deceased was ¹11,93,398/- including rental income of ¹2,21,822/-. Learned counsel would submit that rental income shall have to be included for determining the income of the deceased and he places reliance on the decision of this Court in K.Ramya and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another reported in 2022 SC 816. Further learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal taking note of income tax returns i.e. Ex.P17, Ex.P23 and Ex.P40 ought to have taken average income of 3 years. Further learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal also committed an error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 when the dependents are four in numbers. It is submitted that the proper deduction would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd. The learned counsel would also submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in not awarding any compensation on the head of future prospects. He submits that since the deceased was aged 46 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Further, it is submitted that the wife, children and mother would be entitled for consortium on the head of filial, parental and spousal at the rate of ¹40,000/- each. Thus, the learned counsel for appellants prays to enhance the compensation by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri R.R. Mane for respondentNo.2-Insruance Company would submit that IT returns i.e. Exs.P17, P23 and P40 would include rental income and the rental income cannot be taken into account while determining the income of the deceased. He submits that the claimants are continuing to receive the rental income even today and it is not a loss as contemplated by the learned counsel for the claimants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 10. Further learned counsel Sri R.R. Mane would submit that the first claimant-wife of the deceased, is inducted as partner in the business. Therefore, it is also his submission that there is no loss of business income also to the LRs. of the deceased. Learned counsel Sri. R.R. Mane would submit that in terms of income tax records, the date of birth of the deceased is 24.04.1965, according to which, the age of the deceased would be 46 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, appropriate multiplier would be 13 and not 15 as adopted by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that from the income to be determined based on the income tax returns, rental income as well as income tax paid shall be deducted while determining the income of the deceased. Thus, learned counsel would pray for passing appropriate order by modifying the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with original records of the Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration in this appeal: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 (i) Whether the income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal is proper and correct? (ii) Whether the claimants would be entitled for determination of income of the deceased in terms of income tax returns as per Exs.P17, P23 and P40? (iii) Whether rental income is to be deducted from the gross income of the deceased? and (iv) Whether the claimants would be entitled for future prospects at the rate of 25% of the assessed income? 12. Our answer to point No.(i) in the <Negative= and point Nos.(ii) to (iv) in the <Affirmative= for the following reasons: a) The accident that took place on 14.3.2012 involving Truck bearing reg. No.KA-02/AA-7359 and Car bearing reg. No.KA-25/Z-2768 resulting in death of husband of 1st claimant i.e. Firdoose Ahmed is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal committed a grave error in determining the income of the deceased notionally by ignoring the income tax returns at Exs.P17, P23 and P40. Ex.P17 is the income tax return for Assessment Year 2009- 10, Ex.P23 is the income tax return for Assessment Year 2010-11, whereas Ex.P40 is the income tax return for Assessment Year 2011-12. The said each income tax returns include rental income as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/insurer. It is to be noted that even after demise of the deceased, the legal representatives of the deceased would continue to get rental income even to this date. Hence, there is no loss of income from the rentals. However, the Apex Court in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 case of K. Ramya & Others supra, with regard to treatment of income from the house property and agricultural land at paragraph-20 and 21 has held as under: <20. At this juncture, we must note the decision in Shashikala v. Gangalakshmamma whereby this court deducted the entire amount earned as income from house property while determining the compensation under the Act. The decision in Shashikala was a split decision because of disagreement between the bench on whether future prospects are to be considered for awarding compensation when the deceased is a self-employed person. Accordingly, the matter was tagged and heard along with Pranay Sethi wherein this court had conclusively decided the abovementioned issue regarding future prospects. After that, the matter was remitted back to a three-judge bench for redetermination of compensation, wherein this court again deducted the entire amount earned as income from house property. 21. Now, the sole issue which remains before this court is whether the entire amount under 8Income from House Property and Agricultural Land9 should be deducted or not. In this respect, we are guided by the observations of this court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur16 wherein it was noted that - 8. x-x-x-x The land possessed by the deceased still remains with his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the claimants - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered. 22. In our opinion, the abovementioned observations, though made in the context of agricultural land, would also be applicable to rent received from leased out properties as the loss of dependency arises mainly out of loss of management capacity or efficiency. As a rule of prudence, computation of any individual's managerial skills should lie between 10 to 15 per cent of the total rental income but the acceptable range can be increased in light of specific circumstances. The appropriate approach, therefore, is to determine the value of managerial skills along with any other factual considerations.= (Emphasis supplied) c) In terms of the above decision, appropriate approach for the Tribunals or this Court is to determine the value of managerial skills along with any other factual considerations. The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has observed that computation of any individual9s managerial skill should lie between 10 to 15 percent of the total rental income. In the instant case, PW1 in her - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 evidence has neither stated anything about rental income nor there is any averment as to management of rented property. In the absence of cogent evidence with regard to management of rented property, we deem it appropriate to add 10% of rental income towards managerial skill of the deceased. d) Ex.P17-income tax return for A.Y.2009-10 would indicate the total income of the deceased at Rs.8,96,712/-, out of which a sum of Rs.1,59,500/- is shown towards rental income and a sum of Rs.1,78,794/- towards income tax shall have to be deducted and 10% of rental income i.e. Rs.16,000/- shall have to be added to the income in terms of above decision. After deducting the income tax and rental income and adding 10% of rental income, the net income of the deceased for the A.Y.2009-10 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 would be Rs.5,74,418/- (Rs.8,96,712- (1,59,500 +Rs.1,78,794) + 16,000). e) Ex.P23-income tax return for A.Y.2010-11 would indicate the total income of the deceased at Rs.11,44,875/-, out of which a sum of Rs.3,93,360/- towards rental income and a sum of Rs.2,84,412/- towards income tax shall have to be deducted and 10% of rental income i.e. Rs.39,000/- shall have to be added to the income. After deducting the income tax and rental income and adding 10% of rental income, the net income of the deceased for the A.Y.2010-11 would be Rs.5,06,103/- (Rs.11,44,875-(3,93,360 +Rs.2,84,412) + 39,000). f) Ex.P40-income tax return for A.Y.2011-12 would indicate the total income of the deceased at Rs.11,93,398/-, out of which a sum of Rs.2,91,823/- towards rental income - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 and a sum of Rs.2,44,103/- towards income tax shall have to be deducted and 10% of rental income i.e. Rs.29,000/- shall have to be added to the income. After deducting the income tax and rental income and adding 10% of rental income, the net income of the deceased for the A.Y.2011-12 would be Rs.6,86,472 (Rs.11,93,398- (2,91,823+Rs.2,44,103) + 29,000). If average of above three years9 income is taken, the income of the deceased would be Rs.5,88,998/- (Rs.17,66,993/3). g) The deceased was aged about 46 years and in terms of decision of the Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1, the claimants would be entitled to an addition of 25% of the assessed income 1 2017(16) SCC 680 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 towards future prospects. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 46 years as forthcoming from the income tax records and therefore, proper multiplier would be 13. The Tribunal committed a grave error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since there are four dependants, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Applying the same, the claimants would be entitled to modified compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under: Rs.5,88,998 + 25% x 13 x 3/4 = Rs.71,78,413/- h) The claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased, would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 transportation of dead body and funeral expenses in terms of decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others2. i) Thus, the claimants would be entitled to modified compensation under the following heads: Particulars Amount Loss of dependency Rs.71,78,413/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40000x4) Rs. 1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Transportation of dead body & funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs.73,68,413/- j) The Tribunal has saddled the liability on the insurance company and the insurance company has accepted the said liability. 13. For the reasons recorded above, we proceed to pass the following: 2 (2018)18 SCC 130 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 ORDER a) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.73,68,413/- as against Rs.25,20,120/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. d) The respondent/insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) The apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13849-DB MFA No. 103442 of 2015 f) Draw modified award accordingly. g) No order as to costs. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE VMB/JTR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42