- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102590 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SMT. HASAMATH UNNISA W/O SRI MUNEER @ MUNNER AHAMAD AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O 14TH WARD, 3RD CROSS, RAMA MANDIR ROAD, HOLLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, R/O AT USMAN HEAD CONSTABLE, RURAL POLICE STATION, POLICE QUARTERS, HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101. NOW R/O COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LOHITHASWA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF MARUTHI OMINI BEARING REG NO.KA-16/M-4066, R/O # B-DIVISION, GANAPATHI ROAD, HOLALKERE TOWN AND TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, OPPOSITE PETROL BUNK, MAIN ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI 583101. POLICY NO.351010311561378916 VALID FROM 12.2.2016 TO 11.2.2017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.06 10:07:34 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE MEMBER III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BALLARI IN MVC NO.865/2016 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AND AWARDING A TOTAL COMPENSATION OF RS.45,06,000/- TO THE APPELLANT & ETC. THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment & award dated 27.04.2018 passed in MVC No.865/2016 on the file of the learned III-MACT, Ballari1. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellant who is the mother of the deceased Sri.Syed Ghouse S/o. Syed Muneer @ Muneer Ahmad, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act contending that on 15.04.2016, the deceased Sri.Syed Ghouse left Chitradurga in Maruthi Omini bearing registration No.KA-16-M-4066 of his friend Sri.Lohitheswara along with another friend’s family 1 For short ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 members of Sri.Basavaraj and Sri.Sampath Kumar for treatment of the wife of Sri.Basavaraj i.e., Smt.Chetana at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. The deceased was sitting by the side of respondent No.1 who is his friend and was the driver cum owner of the said Maruthi car. Around 3:30 am, when they reached near Khasinath Hotel, near Seebi village on Sira-Tumkur NH-48 road, the driver of the said car drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the lorry bearing registration No.KA-04 C-6903 from the back side which was parked on the left side of the road. 3. Due to the said accident, the deceased has sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the said injuries in the Government District Hospital, Tumkur on the same day around 4:30 pm. 4. It is averred that the deceased was aged 37 years, working as lecturer and businessman and had income of Rs.20,000/- per month. 5. Respondent No.2/Corporation filed written statement denying the age, avocation and admitting the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 policy and its force as on the date of accident, but has contended that its liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and contended that the occurrence of the accident was due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry who has left the lorry without the proper indicator. Hence, he sought to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,64,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Learned counsel Sri. Y. lakshmikant Reddy appearing for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in not awarding compensation under the head of future prospects of the deceased and also not awarded the compensation under the head of loss of consortium and award of compensation under the conventional head is also not inconsonance with the law - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, Smt. Sharmila M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Corporation submits that the Tribunal without any basis assess the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month, which is on the higher side and she seeks to reassess the income at Rs.8,750/- as per the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to assess the income in the motor vehicle accident claims. Hence, she seeks to modify the award of the Tribunal to the aforesaid extent. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2/Corporation and meticulously perused the appeal papers along with original records. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the only 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 point that would arise for our consideration in this present appeal is, whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for interference? 11. The aforesaid point is answered in the ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons: a. The parties to the proceedings does not dispute that in a road accident dated 15.04.2016, the son of the appellant sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. It is contended that the deceased was working as a lecturer and also doing business and had income of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, no evidence is placed on record to prove the income of the deceased. Hence, we are of the considered view that the income of the deceased is required to be reassessed at Rs.8,750/- per month by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others3 considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. The deceased was a Bachelor. Therefore, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was about 37 years at the time of accident and the appropriate applicable multiplier is ‘15’. Therefore, loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified at Rs.11,02,500/- (8,750 + 40% x 12 x 15 x ½). b. In light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 3 2017(16)SCC 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 c. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection i.e., consortium which is on lower side. Hence, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others4, the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. d. The appellant/claimant is entitled for the following modified compensation with interest at the rate of 6%: 4 2018 ACJ 2782 Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Loss of dependency 11,02,500/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 15,000/- Loss of consortium 40,000/- Total 11,72,500/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 12. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,72,500/- as against Rs.11,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding rate of interest at 9% per annum, which appears to be on the higher side. Normally, this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of prevailing rate of interest paid on the fixed deposit by the nationalized banks, would award interest at 6% per annum. Therefore, in the present case also, the claimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 14. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,72,500/- as against Rs.11,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9456-DB MFA No. 102590 of 2018 iii. The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. iv. The insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal along with TCR forthwith. vi. Draw modified award accordingly. vii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE PJ /RKM-para 11 to end, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32