- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10269-DB MFA No. 100241 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A. NO. 100241 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KANNAMMA W/O. RAJAPPA HULIHALLI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. KUM. ANITA D/O. RAJAPPA HULIHALLI, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 3. KUM. SANJANA D/O. RAJAPPA HULIHALLI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 4. KUM. SACHIN S/O. RAJAPPA HULIHALLI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 5. KUM. VARSHINI D/O. RAJAPPA HULIHALLI, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, BYADGI, TQ. BYADGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581106. (APPELLANT NO.3 TO 5 ARE MINORS ARE R/BY THEIR NATURAL MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1). 6. SMT. DURGAVVA W/O. RAJAPPA HULIHALLI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 7. KUM. ASHIWINI D/O. RAJAPPA HULIHALLI, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 8. KUM. AKSHATA D/O. RAJAPPA HULIHALLI, AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, BYADGI, TQ. BYADGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581106. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10269-DB MFA No. 100241 of 2024 (APPELLANT NO. 7 & 8 ARE MINORS ARE R/BY THEIR NATURAL MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.6). …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI PANCHAKSHARAYYA P. G. S/O. PUTTAPAP GOLLARHALLIMATH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. OLD CHILLI MARKET, HUGAR GALLI, BYADGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581106. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BYADGI, IN MVC NO.526/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10269-DB MFA No. 100241 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 27.01.2023 passed in MVC No.526/2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Byadagi1. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased Rajappa Hulihalli at Rs.11,000/- per month. He seeks to reassess the income at Rs.11,750/- per month as per notional income the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA). It is submitted that the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which is contrary to the material on record. He submits that as there are 8 claimants the appropriate deduction would be 1/5th. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal to the aforesaid extent. 1 for short, ‘Tribunal’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10269-DB MFA No. 100241 of 2024 4. Per contra, Sri.S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that if the Court desires to modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is only required under the head of loss of consortium as per the settled position of law. He further submits that as claimant No.6 is the second wife of the deceased, she cannot be treated as the dependent. Hence, he seeks to pass appropriate orders. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference? 7. The above point is answered in the ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons: 8. It is not in dispute that in a road accident dated 23.12.2019, Sri.Rajappa Hulihalli sustained grievous - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10269-DB MFA No. 100241 of 2024 injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is also not in dispute that the accident is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which is insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Taking note of the pleading and evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.22,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimants. 9. As regards the contention of the appellants that the income assessed by the Tribunal is incorrect and has to be reassessed, admittedly no evidence is placed on record to assess the income of the deceased, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to reassess the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.11,750/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. Admittedly, the claimants are wives and children of the deceased and they are eight in number, hence, the appropriate deduction would be 1/5th and not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10269-DB MFA No. 100241 of 2024 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claimant No.6 is the second wife of the deceased and she is not entitled to be a dependent of the deceased cannot be accepted, as the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under: Rs.11,750 + 40% x 12 x 15 x 4/5 = Rs.23,68,800/- 11. In terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others2, each of the claimants would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- under the head of loss of consortium which includes 10% escalation. The claimants would also be entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses including 10% escalation. 2 2018 ACJ 2782 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10269-DB MFA No. 100241 of 2024 12. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads: 13. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.27,53,800/- as against Rs.22,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The claimants are entitled to 6% interest on the compensation amount from the date of claim petition till realization. 15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal stands allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants would be entitled to total Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Loss of dependency 23,68,800/- Loss of estate 16,500/- Funeral expenses 16,500/- Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 X 8) 3,52,000/- Total 27,53,800/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10269-DB MFA No. 100241 of 2024 compensation of Rs.27,53,800/- as against Rs.22,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement of enhanced compensation shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. f) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35