- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 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.101451 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHILA W/O. BALAKRISHNA HOSAMANI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. BALAKRISHNA HOSAMANI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, 3. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. SANTOSH KAMATAGI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 4. SMT. LALITA W/O. SURESH PATIL AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O: BADAL ANKALAGI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SUDHAKAR S/O. MACHINDRA KAMBLE Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DHEREMALA, WANLESSWADI, SANGLI, DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK, NICHOLAS PRIMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, GANAPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.1514/2013, BY ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 27.04.2015 passed in MVC No.1514/2013 by the III Addl. Sr.Civil Judge & MACT, Belagavi seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The claimants-petitioners before the Tribunal filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of one Balakrishna Yallappa Hosmani aged 59 years working in Railway Department who died in a road traffic accident on 06.01.2013 at 9.15 p.m. It is stated that, when he was proceeding on his bicycle on Sangli-Miraj Road near S.R.Petrol Pump, at that time, a rider of a motor bike bearing Regn.No.MH.10/BC-5380 owned by respondent no.1 came from his behind in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed to the bicycle and deceased Balakrishna suffered injuries and died in the Miraj Government Hospital on 07.01.2013. It is alleged that, deceased was earning Rs.25,507/- from his employment and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 claimant no.1 is wife and claimant nos. 2 to 4 are the children who were fully depending upon his income and now they are deprived of their earning member, so also his love and affection. Both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation hence, prayed to award Rs.36,16,264/- as compensation. 3. Both the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their independent objections contending inter alia that the claimants are put to strict proof of allegations made with regard to accident, age, occupation of the deceased. It is contended that, because of negligence on the part of the deceased himself, the said accident has taken place. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Based upon the rival pleadings, Tribunal framed 3 issues. To prove the claim of the claimants, claimant no.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and closed their evidence and respondent did not lead any evidence. Respondentno.2 got marked the Insurance Policy at Ex.R1. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent riding of motor bike owned by respondent 1 insured with respondent no.2. It has come to the conclusion that deceased was earning gross salary of Rs.31,893/- at the time of accident based upon his salary slip issued from Central Railway, Miraj Station where he was working and also counted the dependency and ultimately awarded total compensation of Rs.11,37,000/- under all the relevant heads. The Tribunal has fastened the liability on both the respondents to pay the compensation but, however, directed respondentno.2 to deposit the compensation under law of indemnity. 6. Now the claimants in this appeal are seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the income so arrived at by the Tribunal is incorrect and there is no addition of future prospects and hence, it is prayed to enhance the compensation as prayed in the claim petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 7. As against this submission, the learned for respondent no.2 justifies the award of compensation and prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the side and perused the record. 9. So far as accident which occurred on 06.01.2013 at 9.15 p.m. as alleged in the petition and death of Balakrishna Yallappa Hosmani in the accident is, not in dispute, so also, his employment with Railway Department and his earnings. The liability is also not in dispute. There is no proof regarding violation of policy conditions by respondent no.1. 10. While calculating the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the gross salary of the deceased at Rs.25,415/- as per the gross salary for the month of October 2012. According to the Tribunal, deceased died at the age of 59 years and he had service of six months in Railways. Taking into consideration the judgment of co- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 ordinate Bench of this Court in KSRTC vs. Narsubai and others1, 50% of the income is to be deducted since the deceased had only six months of service. The wife of deceased is the only dependent as per the claim petition. The other claimants are son and two daughters who are already married. Daughters are not depending upon the deceased. Thus, taking into consideration the above facts, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the salary from out of total net income of the deceased which comes to Rs.12,707/- after deducting 50% from Rs.25,415/-. From this, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.8,472/-(Rs.12,707 – Rs.4235 = Rs.8472). By applying the judgment in Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr.2 applied `9’ is applied as multiplier and thus, calculated `Loss of Dependency’ at Rs.8,472 x 12 months x 9 = 9,14,976/-. 11. The only grievance of the claimants is that, to the income of the deceased, future prospects of 10% is not 1 KLJ 2014 (3) Karnataka 258 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 included as the deceased had fixed salary. The total income of the deceased Rs.25,415/ - as per the salary slip and to this, 10% is to be added as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. ltd. V/s. Pranay Sethi3, which comes to Rs.2,542/- that means Rs.25,415 + Rs.2,542 = Rs.27,957/-. Out of this, as per judgment in Narasubai Joshi supra, 50% is to be deducted as the deceased had 6 months of service which would be Rs.13,979/-. Out of this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses which comes to Rs.4,659/- that means, net income of the deceased would be Rs.9,319/. It is to be multiplied with `12’ to calculate annually and multiplier `9’ is to be applied as per judgment in Sarla Verma supra. Thus, loss of dependency would be Rs.10,06,452/- (Rs.9319 x 12 months x 9). 12. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,52,490/- towards loss of 6 months salary. The fact of awarding this compensation is not seriously disputed. As the deceased had 3 (2017)16 SCC 680 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 a small stint of service for 6 months, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal. 13. Towards other conventional heads like `Loss of Consortium’, claimant no.1 being the wife is entitled for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/-, Claimant no.2 to 4 have lost their father and love and affection towards deceased. As the accident is of the year 2013 as per judgment in Pranay Sethi supra, for every three years commencing from 2016 onwards 10% for every three years is to be enhanced. That means 30%, then it comes Rs.52,000/- each. Therefore, towards ‘loss of consortium’ Rs.2,08,000/- (Rs.52,000/- X 4) is to be awarded. 14. Under other conventional heads i.e., loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- with 10% increase for every three years. It comes to Rs.19,500/- each. Thus claimants are held entitled as per table below: Sl. No. Particulars Amount In Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 10,06,452/- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 2. Loss of 6 months’ salary 1,52,490/- 3. Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 to 4 2,08,000/- 4. Loss of Estate 19,500/- 5. Transportation of Dead Body & Funeral expenses 19,500/- TOTAL 14,05,942/- 15. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.14,05,942/- as against Rs.11,37,466/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby, enhancement of Rs.2,68,476/- together with interest at 6% from the date of petition till realization. 16. The accident is not in dispute, so also validity of the insurance as on the date of accident is not in dispute. There is no evidence placed on record to show that, there is violation of any policy conditions. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation but, however, respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in-part. ii. The claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.14,05,942/- as against Rs.11,37,466/- thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.2,68,476/- as compensation. iii. The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.1514/2013 dated 27.04.2015 passed by the III Addl. Sr.Civil Judge and MACT, Belagavi is hereby modified to the above extent. iv. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally are held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent no.2 to deposit the said compensation together with interest @6%p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment before the Tribunal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2892-DB MFA No. 101451 of 2016 v. The award of the Tribunal insofar as, apportionment, release and deposit of the compensation amount, remains unaltered. vi. There shall be a modified award accordingly. vii. Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal alongwith the copy of this judgment forthwith. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE Sk/- CT:VG LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 6