- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH 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.102016 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MODINSAB S/O MEHABUBSAB MANIYAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: WELDING WORK, 2. MOHAMMAD ISMIL S/O MODINSAB MANIYAR, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. MOHAMMAD ELIYAS S/O MODINSAB MANIYAR, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. BEBE HAJARA D/O MODINSAB MANIYAR, AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 5. BEBE ASHIYA D/O MODINSAB MANIYAR, AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O: HANAMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE MINORS REP/BY NATURAL FATHER APPELLANT NO.1. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJESAB S/O HUSAINSAB SOPPI AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-25/C-9553, R/O: ANNIGERI, TQ: DIST: GADAG-582201. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.01 10:44:53 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 2. JYOTHI C. GANDI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-25/C-9553, R/O: BHARAT TIMBER COM. NEST TO ELECTRICAL KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI, BHARAT MILLS OLD. PIN:580020. 3. THE MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KALABURGI, MANSION 4TH FLOOR, OPP. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KUSHTAGI IN MVC NO.221/2015 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by judgment & award dated 28.02.2017 passed in MVC No.221/2015 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kushtagi1. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, on 12.02.2014 at about 4-30 p.m., when the deceased Beebe Aisha was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17/J- 2368 as a pillion rider, towards Hanumasagar. When the said motorcycle reached Yalabunachi cross, driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-25/C-9553 came in high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased Beebe Aisha fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is averred that the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident, was doing tailoring work and thereby earning a 1 For short ‘Tribunal’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimants are the husband and minor children of the deceased Beebe Aisha. 3. Respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their separate written statements denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company specifically denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It was averred that the driver of the offending lorry was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, hence, there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal has recorded the evidence of the parties. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,65,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Vijay Malali for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing income of the deceased at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 Rs.3,000/- per month, inasmuch as the deceased was doing tailoring work and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal has further committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards future prospects. He further submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on other heads are also on lower side. Thus, he seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 6. Per contra, Sri.M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company supporting the impugned judgment and award submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, since the claimants have not produced any document to prove the exact income of the deceased. He submitted that the claimant No.1 is a husband of the deceased and he cannot be termed as a dependent of the deceased wife. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation on various heads, which do not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the appeal papers along with original records. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the only point that would arise for our consideration in the present appeal is, whether the appellants/claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 9. Answer to the above point would be in the “affirmative” for the following reasons: (a) The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 36 years as on the date of the accident and she was doing a tailoring work. The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to establish the exact income of the deceased. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 that, in the absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence on record, this Court and the Lok Adalaths normally place reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to assess the income in the motor vehicle accident claims. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2014 and as per the chart referred to supra, the notional income of the deceased is required to be assessed at Rs.7,500/- per month. Accordingly, this Court re-assesses the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. (b) It is the contention of the insurer that the claimant No.1-husband of the deceased cannot be a dependent of the deceased wife. The said contention cannot be accepted since no appeal is preferred by the insurer and the Tribunal considering entire evidence both oral and documentary has rightly come to a conclusion that the husband was also depending on the income of the deceased. Hence, the said contention of the insurer is rejected. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 (c) The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards loss of future prospects. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, the deceased was aged about 36 years and was a self-employed, it would be just and appropriate to add 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. There is no dispute with regard to multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal and deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased considering there are five dependents. (d) Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency as under: Rs.7,500 + 40% x 12 X 15 x 3/4 = Rs.14,17,500/- (e) The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards loss of consortium. 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 & 2 2017(16) SCC 680 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 Others3, each of the claimants would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Besides, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. (f) The appellants are entitled for the following modified compensation: 1 Loss of dependency Rs.14,17,500/- 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to appellants No.1 to 5) Rs.2,00,000/- 3 Transportation of dead body and Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 4 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.16,47,500/- 10. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,47,500/- as against Rs.4,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment & award of the Tribunal is modified holding that claimants would be entitled to total compensation of 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9271-DB MFA No. 102016 of 2017 Rs.16,47,500/- as against Rs.4,65,000/- awarded by Tribunal. iii. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced 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 apportionment & disbursement of shall be made as per award of Tribunal. vi. Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. vii. Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38