- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20743 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. SUREKHA @ DEEPA W/O. DINESH MAHALE, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. SHANTERI D/O. DINESH MAHALE, AGE: 10 YEARS, STUDENT, 3. RATNAKAR S/O. DINESH MAHALE, AGE: 6 YEARS, STUDENT, 4. SMT. UMABAI W/O. RATNAKAR MAHALE, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BANASALE, MANKI, HONNAVAR TALUKA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. (APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 3 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER-APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 AND: 1. DEVENDRA S/O. DHARMA NAIK, REGD. OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING NO. KA-30/2622, R/O: MOOLEMANE, MANKI, HONAVAR TALUKA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MOSQUE ROAD, UDUPI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESH B. RAJNAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HONAVAR IN M.V.C. NO.38/2012 AND ENHANCE THE SAME AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Ganapati M.Bhat, learned counsel for appellants as well as Sri.Anjaneya M., who represents Sri.Rajesh B.Rajanal, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. 2. Aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Honavar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) through orders in M.V.C. No.38/2012 dated 31.10.2012, the claimants therein have preferred the present appeal. 3. The first appellant being the wife, appellant No.2 being the minor daughter, appellant No.3 being the minor son and appellant No.4 being the mother of the deceased Dinesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’ for brevity) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 who died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2011 filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- as compensation. The version of the appellants is that they are entitled to a higher sum. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased by maintaining a shop was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as on the date of accident. However, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and awarded very meager sum as compensation towards loss of dependency. Learned counsel also submits that the compensation that is granted under conventional heads is also on lower side. Further submission is made by learned counsel for the appellants that the accident occurred in the year 2011 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking the notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month and at least said figure should have been adopted by the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the dependents being four in number, 1/4th of the income is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. However, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the earnings only. Learned counsel also states that considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellants regarding the notional income to be taken, there may be marginal enhancement. 6. Admittedly, no proof is produced by the appellants to establish either the occupation or the earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident. However, considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the deceased is required to be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. As rightly put forth by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the dependents being four in number, 1/4th of the earnings are required to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1. It is not in dispute that the deceased died at the age of 39 years. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi2 case, 40% of the earnings of the deceased are required to be added towards future prospects. Also the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) is ‘15’. Thus, with these parameters, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is as follows: Heads Amount in Rs. Notional monthly income 6,000.00 Annual income 72,000.00 On adding 40% towards future prospects 1,00,800.00 On deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses 75,600.00 Loss of dependency, on applying appropriate multiplier ‘15’ 11,34,000.00 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 7. Therefore, it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.11,34,000/- towards loss of dependency. Also the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.60,000/- in total towards loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium. 8. Thus, the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive is as follows: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 11,34,000.00 Funeral expenses 10,000.00 loss of estate 10,000.00 Loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium 60,000.00 TOTAL 12,14,000.00 9. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- only as compensation. However, aforementioned discussion makes it clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 Rs.12,14,000/- as compensation. The claim of the appellants is for Rs.10,00,000/- in total. However, the established position of law is that the Claims Tribunals as well as the Appellate Courts are entitled to grant the sum which is more than claimed in case it appears that the claimants are entitled for the said higher sum. This position is also enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors.3 Therefore, this Court is of the view that the sum arrived at that is Rs.12,14,000/- is required to be granted to the appellants as compensation. Therefore, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Honavar through orders in M.V.C. 3 AIR 2003 SC 674 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 No.38/2012 dated 31.10.2012 is enhanced from Rs.5,90,000/- to Rs.12,14,000/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (v) Out of the total sum that is awarded as compensation, appellant No.1 is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/-, appellants No.2 and 3 to Rs.2,50,000/- each and appellant No.4 to Rs.3,14,000/-. (vi) On deposit and after payment of deficit court fee, appellants No.1 and 4 are - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15013 MFA No. 20743 of 2013 permitted to withdraw their respective shares. (vii) Appellants No.2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares subject to producing sufficient proof that they have attained the age of majority. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53