- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH 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. 102073 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. UDDAPPA KURI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HUNSHYAL, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.J. PEERJADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PANDURANG S/O. HOLEPPA DODDAMANI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: UDAGATTI, TQ: GOKAK, (OWNER OF TRACTOR NO.KA-17/TB-5341) 2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER, LEGAL CLAIM, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CTS NO.472/474, V.A. KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, (INSURER OF TRACTOR NO.KA-17/TB-5341) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1)N OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.374/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GOKAK, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC. THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.) [ Appellant is 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 12.01.2017, passed in M.V.C. No.374/2015 by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T. Gokak (for short ’the Tribunal’) praying for enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased left behind his wife and six children. The claimant/appellant- the wife of deceased approached the Tribunal by filing claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental death of her husband Uddappa Kuri who died in a road traffic accident that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 occurred on 21.06.2014 at about 08.15 p.m., involving motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-49/J-1531 and a tractor bearing Regn.No.KA-17/TB-5341 towards Hunshyal PG village from Sanganakeri side. It is claimed that the deceased was aged 59 years and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from the agricultural work. 4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and placed exparte. Respondent No.2-insurer appeared and filed its objection statement denying the material allegations made in the claim petition regarding factum of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, the amount spent towards transportation and funeral expenses, etc. Respondent No.2 has specifically denied the age, income and occupation of deceased and also its liability to pay the compensation as claimed in the petition. It also contended that the deceased might have sustained injuries due to some other incident and by taking undue advantage of those injuries by colluding with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle has filed this false - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 petition to get wrongful gain. It further contented that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. 5. In support of the claim, petitioner No.2 was examined as PW.1, got marked Ex.P.1 to P.86 and closed their side. On behalf of respondent-insurer, no oral or documentary evidence was produced in support of its contention. 6. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has passed the award, awarding total compensation of Rs.2,74,200/- by holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of rider of the two wheeler and the contributory negligence is assessed at 25% and by verifying the records, held that the age of deceased was 70 years and thus taken the relevant multiplier 5 and granted the compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency 2,40,000/- Funeral and transportation 25,000/- Towards Hospital bill Rs.9,200/- Total Rs.2,74,200/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 7. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and applied the multiplier 5 and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 8. Heard Learned counsel Sri.M.J.Peerjade for appellants and learned counsel Sri.G.N.Raichur, for respondent No.2 appearing through video conference and perused the entire appeal papers including original records. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri.M.J.Peerjade would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in assessing the income of deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month ignoring the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines and further submitted that the tribunal has not verified the police records properly and attributed contributory negligence of 25% towards the rider of the motorcycle which is not correct. He further would submit that the Tribunal has not given compensation under conventional heads like loss of Estate, towards - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and towards consortium, etc. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Sri.G.N.Raichur has supported the judgment of Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsels 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:- 1) Whether the income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal is proper and correct? 2) Whether the claimants prove that there was no contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle and the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 25% compensation towards contributory negligence? 3) Whether the age of the deceased determined by the Tribunal is proper? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 4) Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation under different heads? 12. Our answer to above points are as under: Point No.1:- In the negative; Point No.2:- In the affirmative; Point No.3:- In the negative; Point No.4:- In the affirmative. 13. The occurrence of accident and death of Uddappa Kuri on 21.06.2014 and claimants are his legal heirs are not in dispute. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. No cogent or acceptable document is placed on record to establish the income of the deceased. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the same, this Court and Lok-Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014 would normally assess notional income at Rs.7,500/ per month, taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative document to establish the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 income of deceased, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate to determine notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. 14. The age of the deceased in the charge sheet is shown as 59 years, but the discharge card, other medical records and other documents reveal his age as 70 years. The second petitioner-who was the daughter of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 and her age was mentioned as 42 years in the claim petition. Thus considering the age of second petitioner, the first daughter of deceased as 42 years and considering the age of deceased mentioned in medical records, Tribunal rightly held that the age of deceased at the time of death was about 70 years and accordingly proper multiplier 5 is applied. Hence, we find no interference on that point. 15. The learned trial judge has not awarded compensation under conventional heads like loss of consortium, loss towards estate and transportation of dead - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 body and funeral expenses. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1, claimants are entitled for compensation under conventional heads i.e., loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-; towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- rather than Rs.25,000/-, which is on higher side. 16. Claimants-Petitioners being the wife and children of deceased are entitled for compensation under the head loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the principles laid down in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others2. The deceased left behind his wife, married daughters and thus the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses. 17. The accident has taken place on the southern side of the road leading from Sanganakeri to Yadavada. It is the case of claimants that deceased was going from 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 2018 ACJ 2782 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 Sanghanakiri to Yadavada. The spot sketch and spot panchanama reveal that the accident happened on the right side of the road and his vehicle was also found on the southern side of the road; whereas, the tractor was found on eastern side of the road. Further, there is no material evidence to show that the deceased was holding valid driving license at the time of driving the vehicle. He was at the age of 70 years and during night time, he has driven the vehicle, thus rightly the Tribunal assessed contributory negligence at 25% from his side. We find no reason to interfere on the above said point. 18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under: Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.7500 X 12 X 5 X 2/3). 19. It is well settled law that claimants No.1 to 7 would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. In terms of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, besides Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 3,00,000/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 3. Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 7) Rs. 2,80,000/- Total Rs. 6,10,000/- 20. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- as against Rs.2,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. Out of total compensation of Rs.6,10,000/-, 25% i.e. Rs.1,52,500/- is to be deducted towards contributory negligence and thus claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,57,500/-. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 22. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The above appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,57,500/-as against Rs.2,74,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation amount will bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization. d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14361-DB MFA No. 102073 of 2017 e) Apportionment, deposit & disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal. f) Draw modified award accordingly. g) No order as to costs. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 60