- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100754 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.LAXMI W/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HALE-TORGAL-591123, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. ARUNGOUDA S/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 1 YEAR 4 MONTHS, (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1, SMT.LAXMI W/O RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, R/O: HALE-TORGAL-591123) 3. YALLANAGOUDA S/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: HALE-TORGAL-591123, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT.GANAGAWWA W/O. YALLANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HALE-TORGAL-591123, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. MISS RENUKA D/O. YALLANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 17 YEARS 5 MONTHS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: HALE-TORGAL-591123, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER- PETITIONER NO.3. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SHAILA. BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER N.W.K.R.T.C. BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-42/F-1645) 2. CHANDANGOUDA S/O. YALLANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HALE-TORGAL-591123, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-24/U-7-78) 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ABOVE BANK OF BARODA, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001, (INSURER OF TVS MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-24/U-7078) …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS. V. K. KALADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE DISPENSED WITH R2) MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1903/2017 AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant Nos.1 to 5 being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 12.12.2018 passed in MVC.No.1903/2017 by the X Additional District Judge and Member of Additional MACT, Belagavi have preferred this appeal. 2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. Facts stated by the claimants: 3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Mr.Ramanagouda Yellanagouda Patil, husband of claimant No.1,father of claimant No.2, son of claimant Nos.3 and 4 and brother of claimant No.5, in a road traffic accident that took place on 12.08.2017 at 3.30 p.m, when a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-1645 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to his motorcycle within the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 limits of Ranakalkoppa village and because of this accident he died on the spot. 4. The deceased Ramanagouda was 24 years old at the time of accident and he was an agriculturist as well as mason by profession and used to earn Rs.25,000/- p.m. He used to contribute his entire income towards his family maintenance. Now the claimants have lost their earning member in the family, so also lost his love and affection. They have spent substantial money towards funeral and other expenses. Thus, prayed to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- [Rupees Fifty Lakhs] with interest. Objections of respondents: 5. In response to the notices, all the respondents appeared and filed their independent objection statements. It is contended by all the respondents that, the claimants are put to strict proof of entire assertion made in the claim petition. Deceased being the rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid and effective Driving Licence. He was not wearing helmet. Because of his rash and negligent driving - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 only, the said accident has taken place. Respondent No.2 specifically contends that, the insurance policy in respect of the motorcycle was in force at the time of accident and respondent No.3 has to indemnify the compensation, if at all the claimants are entitled for compensation. Respondent No.3 contends that, there is violation of the policy condition by the respondent No.2 and hence it is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 has entrusted the motorcycle to the rider who was not holding the Driving Licence. There is breach of policy conditions. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Evidence of the parties: 6. Based upon the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed in all three [3] issues. To prove the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 and an eye witness to the accident were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. Closed claimants’ evidence. Respondent No.1 examined the driver of the Bus as RW.1 and produced two [2] documents as Exs.R1 and R2. An official of respondent No.3 was examined as RW.2 and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 through him Ex.R3 was marked. Respondent No.2 has not lead any evidence. 7. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found that the said accident has taken place because of actionable negligence on the part of the offending KSRTC bus driver. The rider was not negligent in driving his motorcycle. Though the contention was taken about contributory negligence, it was rejected. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that, the claimants are entitled for compensation by holding that deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m and to that 40% future prospects was added by applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. ltd. v/s. Pranay shethi1 judgment and thus awarded the total Rs.16,82,800/- as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount In Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 16,12,800-00 2. Loss of consortium 40,000-00 3. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 4. Funeral expenses 15,000-00 TOTAL 16,82,800-00 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 8. Now, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. Submissions of claimants: 9. The learned counsel for the claimant Smt. Shaila Bellikatti submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. Deceased was an agriculturist as well as a mason by profession. He was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. Claimants being the dependents of the deceased have lost their earning member and also have lost his love and affection. She submits that, though no document is produced with regard to the income of the deceased as the accident is of the year 2017 the Tribunal ought to have taken income of the deceased at Rs.10,250/- p.m as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. She further submits that, towards loss of consortium, substantial compensation is to be awarded not only to the wife but also to the parents. So also, a small child i.e., claimant No.2. Thus, she prays to enhance the compensation. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 Submissions of respondents: 10. As against he submission of learned Sri. S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - insurer justifies the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both the side. Perused the records. 12. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver, no material is placed on record by respondent No.1. There is no appeal challenging the said finding. Thus, the findings with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus at the time of accident has attained finality. Now the only fact that is to be considered in this appeal is, “Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?” 13. Our answer to the above point is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 Analysis Sofar as `loss of dependency’ is concerned, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. It is the case of the claimant that, deceased was an agriculturist and mason by occupation. But, no documents are produced. Except the say of PW.1, no evidence is placed on record. Therefore, in the absence of proof regarding income, keeping the profession of the deceased, as per guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, as the accident is of the year 2017, the notional income of the deceased is to be calculated at Rs.10,250/-. The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi supra, 40% is to be added towards future prospects. Total notional income of the deceased would be Rs.10,250 + 40% = Rs.14,350/-. As the claimant was having 5 dependents, as per the judgment in Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla verma and Or. V/s. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr2, 1/4th of income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. That means Rs.14,350 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 – Rs.3588 = Rs.10,762/-. This will be the contribution of the deceased towards maintenance of family. Rs.10,762/- is to be multiplied with 12 to calculate annually, which comes to Rs.1,29,144/-. This amount is to be multiplied with ‘17’ as the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident. Rs.1,29,144 x 17 = Rs.21,95,448/-. This would be the `loss of dependency’ because of untimely death of deceased in the said accident. 14. Claimant No.1 is the wife, Claimant No.2 is the son aged 4 months at the time of accident, Claimant No.3 is the father, Claimant No.4 is the mother and Claimant No.5 is the sister of a deceased. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the wife and a son have lost their earning member. Claimant No.1 being wife, aged 21 years has lost her husband at her young age. Claimant No.2 has lost his father. Claimant Nos.3 and 4 have lost their son and Claimant No.5 being the sister has lost her brother. She is unmarried. Therefore, towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- each is to be awarded with 10% hike i.e., Rs.40,000 + Rs.4,000 each, it would be Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.44000/- X 5). - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 15. Sofar as loss of estate and funeral expenses is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence placed on record and based upon the guidelines in Pranay Sethi supra have awarded compensation at Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In view of the judgment stated supra, there shall be 10% hike to this loss of estate and funeral expenses which comes to Rs.16,500/- each. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount In Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 21,95,448-00 2. Loss of consortium to Claimant Nos.1 to 5. 2,20,000-00 3. Loss of estate 16,500-00 5. Funeral expenses` 16,500-00 TOTAL 24,48,448-00 16. Thus the claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs. 24,48,448/-. 17. It is held that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. For the tortious act of servant, master is liable. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 Therefore, respondent No.1 being the owner of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-1645 is liable to pay the compensation. Sofar as claim petition against other respondents is concerned, rightly Tribunal, has dismissed the petition. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs. 24,48,448/- as against Rs.16,82,800/- awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Thereby there is a enhancement of compensation of Rs.7,65,648/-. iii. The respondent No.1 is held liable to pay the compensation and it is directed to deposit the compensation amount within six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2897-DB MFA No. 100754 of 2019 iv. The order regarding apportionment, deposit and disbursement ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered. v. There shall be modified award in the above terms vi. Send back the trial Court records along with copy of the judgment. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM /CT:VG LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 17