- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100640 OF 2016 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDRABHAGA W/O NARAYAN TEMBRE AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANGA NAGAR, SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS, VANTAMURI, BELAGAVI. 2. NISHA D/O NARAYAN TEMBRE AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANGA NAGAR, SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: 1ST CROSS, VANTAMURI, BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRIYUTHS. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT AND SHRUTI A. NEELOPANT, ADVS) AND: 1. NAZIR AHMED GOUSEMOHIDDN MULLA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.1569, NAVI GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. 3. VINAYAK BHIMSEN KADAM AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.110, GANGA NAGAR, SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2025.08.11 16:07:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.861/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-III, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimants, challenging the judgment and award dated 21.08.2015 passed in MVC No.861 of 2012 by the learned II Additional District Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on the ground of inadequacy in the compensation awarded. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking in MVC No.861/2012, The appellants were the claimants and respondents 1 and 2 herein were the ranks before the tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. On 11.02.2012, one Rakesh was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.23-EA.8784 as a rider. When he reached the spot of accident, i.e., near Dharwad Naka, at that time, the driver of the Bolero pickup vehicle bearing registration No.KA.22- B.5298 came from the opposite direction in a rash, speed and negligent manner and dashed to the vehicle. As a result, Rakesh sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. 5. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 17 years as on the date of the accident, and he was earning income, and contributing to the family. The claimants are the legal heirs, and they have suffered mentally and financially on account of his death. They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of ₹11,00,000/-. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that, the rider of the motorcycle was riding the motor cycle without a valid Driving Licence, in violation of the terms of the policy. It is also contended that, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the rider and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the rider and the pillion rider both succumbed to the injuries in the accident, and their legal representatives have filed separate claim petitions in MVC No.860 of 2012 and MVC No.861 of 2012, respectively. 8. The Tribunal clubbed both the claim petitions, and framed the separate issues. 9. To prove the claim petition averments, claimant No.2 in MVC No.860 of 2012 was examined as PW-1, and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked, and claimant No.1 in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 MVC No.861 of 2012 was examined as PW-2, and 22 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-22. In rebuttal, the official of the respondent-insurance company was examined RW-1, and marked 3 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3. 10. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide common judgment dated 21.08.2015. 11. In the case of the rider, i.e. in MVC No.861/2012, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹6,65,000/-, and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 12. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants, and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 14. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the award of compensation under the various heads by the Tribunal is inadequate. She submits that the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- per annum is on the lower side and that the Tribunal should have taken into consideration, the notional income as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since, the claimants have not produced any income proof, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident of 2012, the notional income of the deceased should have been taken at ₹6,500/- per month. Further, 40% of the said income ought to have been added towards the future prospects. The compensation awarded by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 Tribunal is on the lower side, and hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 i.e., insurance company, submits that the claimants have not produced any record to prove the income of the deceased. He also submits that the deceased was aged about 17 years and was a student with no independent income. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, and the same do not call for any interference. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 16. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 17. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation. 18. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, and the death of the rider—Rakesh in the said accident are not in dispute. To prove the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimants have produced a copy of the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-6, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 19. Insofar as the awarding of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the deceased was aged 17 years as of the date of the accident, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, as the deceased was a minor, and a non-earning member. 20. The said issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chetana and others v. Babuji M. and others, in MFA No.102268 of 2019, disposed of on 13.11.2020. The Division Bench held that Section 3 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulations), Act, 1986, prohibits the employment of a child in certain occupations and processes. The Act does not prohibit - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 a 17 year old from being involved in a milk vending business. The deceased and his family are from a rural area, and it is common for a person of 17 years to be involved in milk vending or similar occupations. 21. The Division Bench has already answered the said issue. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company i.e. Respondent No.2 is rejected. 22. Insofar as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, the claimants have not produced any proof of income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income of the deceased will have to be determined as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. According to the said chart, for the accidents of the 2012, the national income of the deceased will have to be taken at ₹6,500/- per month, and to the aforesaid sum, as the deceased was aged about 17 years, 40% of the said amount has to be added - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 towards the future prospects in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to ₹9,100/- [₹6,500/- + ₹2,600/-]. 23. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried. Hence, 50% of the said amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, the net monthly income of the deceased would come to ₹4,550/-. 24. The appropriate multiplier to be applied to the age of the deceased, being 17 years, is ‘18’, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 25. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of ₹9,82,800/- on account of loss of dependency [₹4,550/- x 12 x ‘18’]. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 26. In addition, claimants No.1 and 2 being the legal heirs of the deceased, are entitled a sum of ₹48,000/- each, towards a loss of consortium, i.e. ₹48,000/- x 2 = ₹96,000/-. 27. The claimants are also entitled to a sum of ₹36,000/- towards funeral expenses, and loss of estate. 28. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹11,14,800/- as against ₹6,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be ₹4,49,800/- 29. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.861/2012 is hereby modified. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9535 MFA No. 100640 of 2016 (iii) The claimants are entitled from enhanced compensation of ₹4,49,800/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. (iv) Respondent No.2—Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the said compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16