- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102626 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARANI RAJASHEKHAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SRI. SHANKAR KURABET AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BELLADABAGEWADI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: DHARWAD-591309. 2. SRI. SHANKAR S/O. SRI. PARWADI KURABET, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O: BELLADABAGEWADI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: DHARWAD-591309. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 3. SMT. NAGAWWA W/O. SRI. SURESH BENNALLI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BELLADABAGEWADI TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: DHARWAD-591309. 4. SRI. BABASAB S/O. SRI KALLAPPA JANAJ AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR MAHADEV MANDIR SOUNDATTI TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY MODIFYING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.03.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND ADDL. MACT BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.651 OF 2022, WITH COST. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Arani Rajashekhar S., learned counsel for the petitioner–Insurance Company, and Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The insurer has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and award dated 27.03.2025 passed in MVC No.651/2022 by the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) seeking compensation on account of the death of one Santhosh in a road traffic accident that occurred on 21.01.2022. According to the averments in the claim petition, on 21.01.2022 at about 4:00 p.m., the deceased was proceeding from Ankali to Raibag as the rider of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/Y- 1411, on the extreme left side of the road. At that time, a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-23/M-9130 came from Shivshakti Sugar Factory towards Ankali, in the opposite direction, and, while being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the impact, the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous head injuries and later succumbed to the same. It is contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the Tempo Trax. The claimants have sought compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. After service of notice, the respondents in the claim petition entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. Respondent No.2–insurer denied the occurrence of the alleged accident, the negligence attributed to the driver of the Tempo Trax, and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. It was further contended that the deceased was not in possession of a valid and effective - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 driving licence at the time of the accident. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1, and another witness was examined as PW.2. The claimants produced and marked 8 documents, which were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondents did not examine any witnesses but produced and marked 1 document as Ex.R1. 5. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Taking the age of the deceased as 25 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘18’. As the monthly income of the deceased was not established by evidence, the Tribunal, having regard to the year of the accident, assessed the notional income at Rs.14,750/- per month. Since the deceased was unmarried, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal also awarded an addition of 40% towards future prospects, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 considering the age of the deceased. Further, compensation was granted under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,27,600/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 6. The only dispute urged by the learned counsel for the parties pertains to the correctness of the deduction made towards personal expenses. 6.1 The learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses, and that the deduction of only 1/3rd by the Tribunal is erroneous. 7. Sri K. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, and does not warrant any interference. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. 9. The only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is with regard to the deduction towards personal expenses. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was unmarried. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], where the deceased is a bachelor, 50% of the monthly income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The deduction of 1/3rd made by the Tribunal is contrary to the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal requires modification to that extent. 10. Learned counsels for both parties have filed memo of calculation in light of the aforesaid legal position. Accordingly, the total compensation is re-computed as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified compensation (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 14,750 x 12 x 18 x 50% = 21,24,000/- 15,93,000/- 2. Future prospects 14,750 x 12 x 18 x 40% x 50% = 8,49,600/- 6,37,200/- 3. Loss of love and affection 18,000/- 1,40,000/- 4. Loss of estate 18,000/- 18,000/- 5. Transportation and funeral 18,000/- 18,000/- 6. Total Interest 6% date of petition till deposit 30,27,600/- 24,06,200/- Reduced Compensation 6,21,400/- 11. The compensation of Rs.30,27,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is modified and re-determined at Rs.24,06,200/-. Thus, the compensation stands reduced by Rs.6,21,400/-. 12. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award in MVC.No.651/2022 dated 27.03.2025 on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8764-DB MFA No. 102626 of 2025 the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, is hereby modified. iii. The compensation of Rs.30,27,600/- as awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs.24,06,200/-. iv. The apportionment and investment as ordered by the Tribunal is maintained. v. In view of the reduction in compensation, the amount ordered to be deposit is modified proportionately. vi. The amount in deposit before this Court if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25