- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH 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. 102203 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. PRABHAVATHI W/O. LATE DASARATHARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: K.K. HAL VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA, TQ: AND DIST: BALLARI.-583103 2. K.GOVINDA REDDY S/O. LATE DASARATHARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEERING STUDENT, R/O: K.K. HAL VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA, TQ: AND DIST: BALLARI-583103. …APPELLANTS (BY MISS. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVARAJ @ BASAVA S/O. SANNA HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE HERO HONDA MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG. NO.AP-21/M-2169, R/O: BASARALLI VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583103. 2. P. RAMAJAN SAB S/O. P. MASTAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OWNER OF THE HERO HONDA MOTORCYCLE Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 BEARING REG. NO.A--21/M-2169, R/O: ROWDOOR VILLAGE, KOWTHALAM MANDALAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT.-601020 ANDRA PRADESH 3. K. SHAMSUDDIN S/O. K MABU SAB, AGE: MAJOR, POLICY HOLDER OF THE HERO HONDA MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG. NO.AP-21/M-2169, R/O: H.NO.1,-105, KAMAVARAM VILLAGE, ADONI TALUK, KURNOOL DISTRICT.A.P.-601020 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BALLARI. BEARING POLICY NO.552301/31/12/6700001004 VALID FROM 18/12/2012 TO 17/12/2013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJ FOR R2, ADVOCATE; SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 SERVED; R3 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.810/2013 ON THE FILE OF MACT-11, SIRAGUPPA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED 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:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 7th January 2017 passed in MVC No.810/2013 by the MACT-11, Siraguppa filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, they filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act on account of death of Dasharatha Rama Reddy in a road traffic accident that took place on 21.03.2013 at 6.30 p.m. when deceased Dasharatha Ram Reddy was moving on his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.AP-21/AK-3800 towards his residence from his landed property and when he came near K.K.Halli village, at that time, one Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Regn.No. AP-21/M-2169 driven by respondent no.1 in high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased and as a result, he fell down and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 sustained grievous injuries, thereafter, succumbed to injuries. It is specifically stated that, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. 4. It is stated that, prior to accident, he was hale and healthy and was aged 49 years and was an agriculturist by profession and was earning Rs.5 lakhs per annum. He was having 15 acres of land and was to maintain his entire family. Hence, prayed to award compensation as prayed. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondent no.1 and 3 remained absent and were placed ex-parte whereas, respondent Nos.2 and 4 appeared and filed their written statement. These respondents deny the entire assertions and allegations made in the claim petition with regard to the said accident, age of the deceased and his income. Respondent no.2 contends that, respondent no.3 is the policy holder of the offending motor bike bearing Regn. No.AP-21-M/2169 and it is insured with respondent no.4. The policy was valid on the date of accident. It is contended that, respondent no.4 is liable to pay the compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 Whereas, respondent no.4 contends that, though the policy was valid on the date of accident its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, with regard to said accident, Hacholi police have registered crime against respondent no.1 and filed charge sheet against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of MV Act. Hence, respondent no.4 is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent no.2 has not complied the provisions of Section 157 of the MV Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Based upon the both the rival parties learned Tribunal framed three issues. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, claimant no.1 was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9. An official of respondent no.4 was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 and R2. On closure of evidence of both the side, the Tribunal held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of rider of motorbike bearing Regn.No.AP- 21/M-2169 driven by respondent no.1 and hence, the claimants are held entitled for the compensation as under; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 7. Learned Tribunal fastened liability on respondent no.1 and directed him to deposit the compensation amount. Now, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the claimant Sri Y.Lakshmikant Reddy would submit that, the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal is very much on lower side and the income so assessed is not properly taken by the Tribunal and there is no addition of future prospects. He would submit that, the claimants are the dependents and because of untimely death of deceased, they are deprived of their maintenance and lost the love and affection. Claimant Sl. No. Particulars Amount In Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 6,76,104/- 2. Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 50,000/- 3. Towards loss of love and affection (for petitioner no.2) 20,000/- 4. Loss of Estate 20,000/- 5. Funeral expenses 20,000/- 6. Towards transportation charges 5,000/- TOTAL 7,91,104/- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 no.1 is the wife of the deceased aged 42 years and lost her husband, so also conjugal happiness. Claimant no.2 is the son and lost the love and affection of his father. He would submit that, Tribunal rightly fastened the liability and hence, prays to allow the appeal and enhance compensation. 9. As against this submission, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3, Sri Gode Nagaraj and Sri S.K.Kayakmath specifically contend that, it is respondent no.4 who is liable to pay the compensation as the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of motor bike by respondent no.1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.4 and the Branch Office of Insurance Company is headed by respondent no.4. It is submitted that, whatever the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and it cannot be interfered with. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 10. In view of rival submissions of both side, the only point which is to be considered in this appeal is: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 "Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement in compensation?" 11. Sofar as occurrence of accident because of rash and negligent riding of motor bike by respondent no.1 bearing Regn.No. AP- 21/M-2169 is not in dispute. Even the learned Tribunal has evaluated the evidence based upon the police records, that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent riding of said vehicle by respondent no.1. No appeal is preferred by any of the respondents. That means, findings on issue no.1 given by the Tribunal have attained finality. 12. Sofar as assessment of compensation is concerned, the claimants specifically state that, deceased was an agriculturist and was having Rs.5 lakhs income per year from his occupation and used to maintain the claimants. To prove the said fact, the claimants have not produced any single paper that, he was possessing 16 acres of land and was an agriculturist. Except the police papers, no documents are produced. Therefore, in the absence of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 proof regarding his income, notional income has to be taken into consideration. Evidently the said accident has taken place in the year 2013. As per the guidelines issued by the KSLSA chart Rs.7,000/- is to be taken as his notional income. To this, 25% is to be added towards future prospects i.e., Rs.1,750/-. Total comes to Rs.8,750/-. This would be his income per month. In this 1/3rd of his total income (Rs.2,917/-) is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. On arriving at the remainder, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.5,833/-(Rs.8,750 - Rs.2,917/-). It is to be multiplied with 12 to calculate annually. As deceased was aged 49 years at the time of accident as per Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr1, the proper multiplier i.e., applicable is '13’. Therefore, the 'loss of dependency' would be Rs.5,833/- x 12 months x 13 = Rs.9,09,948/-. 13. Sofar as compensation under conventional heads is concerned, as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi2, the claimant no.1 is wife has lost her husband and also conjugal happiness and claimant no.2 son has lost the love and affection of his father. Towards loss of consortium, both claimants are entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/-each with 10% escalation from next three years from the date of accident till passing of this judgment. Thus, the claimants are entitled for 'loss of consortium' at 30% increase i.e., Rs.52,000/-each totaling to Rs.1,04,000/-. Towards 'loss of estate' and funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- is awarded with escalation of 30% i.e., Rs.19,500/- each. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for the compensation as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount In Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 9,09,948/- 2. Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 & 2(@Rs.52,000 each) 1,04,000/- 3. Loss of Estate 19,500/- 4. Funeral expenses Transportation of Dead Body. 19,500/- TOTAL 10,52,948/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 14. It is held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.4. Therefore, respondent no.2 and 4 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent no.4 to deposit the compensation together with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, the above point is answered partly in the affirmative. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in-part. ii. Claimants are held entitled for compensation at Rs.10,52,948/- as against Rs.7,91,104/- thereby enhancement by Rs.2,61,844/- together with interest at the rate of 6% pa. from the date of petition till its realization. iii. Respondent nos. 2 and 4 are jointly and severally held liable to pay - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3176-DB MFA No. 102203 of 2017 compensation. However, Respondent no.4 to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within six weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. iv. The order regarding release, apportionment, deposit passed by the Tribunal, remain unaltered. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE Sk/-AM/CT:VG LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 2