- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101996 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. NARAYANAPPA @ NARAYAN S/O. IRAPPA NAIK, AGE: 56 YEARS, R/O. KANASE, SAGAR. 2. SMT. SAROJA TIMMAPPA NAIK, AGE: 29 YEARS, R/O: SATTALLI, SIDDAPUR. 3. SMT. SUJATHA KUMAR NAIK, AGE: 27 YEARS, R/O: KANSE, SAGAR. 4. MANJUNATH NARAYANAPPA NAIK, AGE: 25 YEARS, R/O: KANSE, TQ: SAGAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 1. NAGARAJ M.B. S/O. BHIRAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER, R/O: KANSE, POST: SYDUR, TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., R/P BY ITS BRANCH MANAGAR, BRANCH OFF, 1ST FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX, B.H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10/04/2015 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MACT SIRSI IN MVC 90/2013 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE PETITION AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Narayan V.Yaji, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.M.K.Soudagar learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) through orders in M.V.C. No.90/2013 dated 10.04.2015, the present appeal is filed by the claimants therein. 3. The first appellant being the husband, appellants No.2 and 3 being the daughters and appellant No.4 being the son of the deceased Sannamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’ for brevity), who died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2012, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 Rs.3,76,000/- as compensation and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased as an agriculturist and by doing coolie work was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day awarded very meager sum as compensation and therefore, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel submits that the accident occurred in the year 2012 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month and at least said figure should have been adopted by the Tribunal. 5. Opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that no evidence whatsoever is produced to show that the deceased was an agriculturist. Learned counsel states that the deceased was aged around 45 years as on the date of accident. As age - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 advances, women will depend more on their husband and thus their earnings cannot be taken even on notional basis. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal rightly took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day and thus the award of the Tribunal needs no interference. Learned counsel further submits that in fact the husband is entitled for compensation only for loss of consortium and nothing more. 6. As per the version of the appellants, the deceased as an agriculturist and by doing coolie work was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It is also their version that the deceased being a healthy lady was looking after all her family members. Undoubtedly, whatever a woman earns will normally be contributed to the family members. That apart, a woman, more particularly in Indian scenario will attend all the household chores apart from attending her professional work either as coolie or through any other occupation whatever highest be the level. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the submission of learned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 counsel for respondent No.2 that the death of the woman will result in payment of compensation only towards loss of consortium in motor accident claims. This Court is of the view that the notional income of the deceased, either woman or man has to be taken equally considering the facts and circumstances of each case and basing on the evidence produced. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellants seeks to take the notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,500/- per month basing on the figure adopted by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad for the relevant period, yet the version of the appellants themselves is that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and not Rs.6,500/- per month as pleaded by the appellants. 8. It is not in dispute that the deceased died at the age of 45 years. Therefore, as per the decision of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi1 case, 25% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. 9. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellants No.2 and 3 being the married daughters of the deceased cannot be held to be the dependents of the deceased. The Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd of the earnings towards personal and living expenses. Thus, even if it is taken that the appellants No.1 and 4 that is husband and son are the only dependents, such deduction only applies that is 1/3rd as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2 case, therefore, the same is retained. The appropriate multiplier as rightly applied by the Tribunal is ‘14’. Therefore, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive towards loss of dependency is as under: 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 Heads Amount in Rs. Notional income 6,000.00 Annual income 72,000.00 On adding 25% towards future prospects 90,000.00 On deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses 60,000.00 Loss of dependency, on applying appropriate multiplier ‘14’ 8,40,000.00 10. Thus, it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- towards loss of dependency. Together with the said amount the first appellant being the husband of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and appellants No.2 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. Also, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. 11. Thus, the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive under each head is as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 8,40,000.00 loss of spousal consortium 40,000.00 loss of parental consortium 40,000.00 Funeral expenses 10,000.00 loss of estate 10,000.00 TOTAL 9,40,000.00 12. Thus, it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- as compensation. 13. Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 made a submission that the appellants are not entitled for any interest towards the amount that is granted towards loss of future prospects. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.1662/2023 between Chandrakala & Another and Dilipkumar M A & Another dated 02.07.2024 wherein the Court at para 19 of the judgment held as follows: “19. One of the grounds urged by respondent No.1 is that although petitioners are entitled for interest on the compensation granted from the date of petition till realization, no interest is to be allowed on the portion of the compensation granted under the head loss of future prospects, as there would be no delay in payment of the same and since it would - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 become due at a point of time which has not yet arisen.” 14. He also placed reliance upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Smt.Seema Devi & others3 wherein the Court at para 26 of the Judgment held as follows: “26. I am in agreement with the decisions of Gauhati High Court, Bombay High Court and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that no interest can be awarded on future prospect, as interest cannot be awarded for something/income which is due in future.” 15. In both the aforementioned decisions, the respective Courts denied interest on future prospects. If the same analogy is applied, in this case also, the appellants should be denied interest on the future prospects. But here is a case where the accident occurred in the year 2012 and where in the year 2025 the case is being disposed of granting justifiable sum which the appellants are entitled to 3 2024 ACJ 2219 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 as compensation. For about 13 long years respondent No.2/Insurance Company is in custody of the amount which the claimants are legally entitled to and thereby enjoying the interest accruing over the said amount too. Therefore, this Court is of the humble view that respondent No.2 is under obligation to pay interest on the said future prospects also. 16. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsi through orders in M.V.C. No.90/2013 dated 10.04.2015 is enhanced from Rs.3,76,000/- to Rs.9,40,000/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15455 MFA No. 101996 of 2016 (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) The apportionment made by the Tribunal applies to enhanced sum as well. (vi) On deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM,RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25