- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103044 OF 2018(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. YALLAWWA W/O. BHIMAPPA CHOUDANNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DODWAD, PIN: 581112, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI.SHANKREPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA CHOUDANNAVAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DODWAD, PIN: 581112, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. IRAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA CHOUDANNAVAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DODWAD, PIN: 581112, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. MISS SHANKREWWA D/O. BHIMAPPA CHOUDANNAVAR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DODWAD, PIN: 581112, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 AND: 1. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O. BASAVARAJ BIJAPUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO-18, 1ST CROSS, BHARAT NAGAR, R/O: R.N.SHETTY ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI, PIN: 580010, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SHRIRAM G.I.C. LTD., E-8 RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, PIN: 600032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED, BUT UN-REPRESENTED) MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO, ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.1548/2015 DATED 25/04/2017. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) Appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 25.04.2017 passed in MVC No.1548/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal and thereby seek enhancement of compensation. 2. Parties to this appeal are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. According to claimants, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 by name Bhimappa Choudannavar on 05.12.2014 died in a road traffic accident at 7:40 pm on 05.12.2014 because of rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax Toofan bearing registration No.KA-27/8836 owned by respondent No.1 insured with respondent No.2 near the landed property of Yallappa Hiragannanavar on Dodwad-Belawadi road. When he died he was aged 50 years. The claimants have spent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 Rs.40,000/- towards his funeral and other expenses. It is stated that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Because of the death of the deceased Bhimappa, the claimants being the dependents are put to mental agony and hardship who was maintaining them. Thus, it is prayed by the claimants to award compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- under all the relevant heads. 4. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 - the Insurer appeared through its standing counsel and filed written objections denying entire assertions made in the petition. It is denied that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax stated above. The insurer denied the age, avocation of the deceased so also expenses incurred by the claimants towards the funeral and other expenses. It is contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the effective DL therefore, there is violation of the policy conditions. The claim of the claimant is highly excessive - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 and exorbitant hence, it is prayed by the respondent No.2 to dismiss the petition. 5. Based upon these pleadings Tribunal framed four issues. To prove the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW.1 and examined one more witness as PW.2-Mahantesh Gangappa Meti and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11 and closed claimants evidence. An official of respondent No.2 by name Chandrakan V.Naik was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and 2 and closed respondents’ evidence. 6. On hearing the arguments and on assessment of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax. As on the date of the accident, the insurance policy was valid. There is no violation of any policy conditions and hence the Tribunal awarded the compensation as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 Sl. No. Head Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 8,19,000/- 2. Loss of Estate, Loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies. 2,00,000/- TOTAL 10,19,000/- 7. The Tribunal fastened the liability on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation and however, directed respondent no. 2 to deposit the compensation by applying the doctrine of law of indemnity. 8. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of award, claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement. It is submitted by the counsel that though the respondent- insured preferred MFA No.103405/2017 before learned single Judge challenging the quantum of liability but, by peremptory order dated 20.03.2018, it was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and even the application for setting aside the said order of dismissal was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 also dismissed thereby the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the liability to pay the compensation has attained finality. The counsel for the Insurer concedes the said fact. 9. It is argued by the claimants that at the time of calculating the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has not properly taken the income of the claimant. He was an agriculturist so also doing milk vending business. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimants are the dependents and hence, it is contended that the assessment of the compensation under all the relevant heads is improper and it requires interference by this Court. Hence, it is prayed to allow this appeal. 10. As against this submission, the learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company Sri.S.K.Kayakmath submits that whatever the income assessed by the Tribunal is based on the actual income of the deceased and it does not require any interference. He prays to dismiss the appeal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the argument of both the sides and perused the records. 12. In view of the rival submissions, the point that is to be decided in this appeal is, “Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement in compensation or otherwise?” Our answer to the above point would be partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: 13. Deceased Bhimappa, was an agriculturist. This fact is not denied by the respondents. Though the claimants claim that, he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but, to prove the said fact except the self-serving testimony of PWs.1 and 2, there is no evidence. The Tribunal has assessed the his monthly income at Rs.7,000/-. The said accident has taken place in the year 2014. In the absence of acceptable evidence with regard to his income, so also the occupation of the deceased as an agriculturist as well as milk vender, his income is assessed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 at Rs.10,000/-. As per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, to this Rs.10,000/-, 10% is to be added towards future prospects as deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident, it comes to Rs.11,000/-. As the claimant had four [4] dependents 1/4th is to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Coporation2 which comes to Rs.2,750/-. Thus, the total contribution of the deceased towards maintenance of the family would be Rs.8,250/-(Rs.11000 – Rs.2750) . It is to be multiplied with ‘12’ to calculate annually. As the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier that is applicable is ‘13’. That means the loss of dependency would be Rs. 8,250 x 12 x 13 = 12,87,000/-. 14. Appellant-Claimant No.1 is the wife and appellant-claimant No.4 is the unmarried daughter. They are entitled for consortium at Rs.40,000/- each towards `loss of consortium’. Appellant-claimant nos. 3 and 4 are major sons, they are entitled for compensation towards 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 2009 ACJ 1298 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 `loss of love and affection’ at the rate of Rs.20,000/- each. As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case supra, Rs.40,000/- with escalation at 20% for three consecutive years as the accident has taken place during 2014 to each of claimants 1 and 4, It comes to Rs.40,000 + 8,000/- Rs.48,000/- each towards `loss of consortium’. Under the conventional heads, claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses with 20% escalation that comes to Rs.18,000/- each, that means towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/- and funeral and other expenses Rs.18,000/-. Thus claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs. 14,59,000/- as against Rs.10,19,000/-, thereby there shall be enhancement in compensation at Rs.4,40,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as per table below: Sl.No . Head Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 12,87,000/- 2. Loss of Estate 18,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses & Obsequies 18,000/- 4. Loss of consortium to claimant no.1 & 4 @ 96,000/- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 Rs.40,000/- with 20% escalation 5. Loss of love and affection to Claimant no.2 and 3 @ Rs.20,000/- each 40,000/- TOTAL 14,59,000/ - 15. As held in the foregoing paras, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 14,59,000/- as against Rs.10,19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby, enhancement in compensation to the extent of Rs.4,40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. However, there is delay of 392 days in preferring the appeal and as per the orders of this Court dated 08.02.2019, while calculating the interest on the compensation amount this delay of 392 days is to be excluded. Resultantly, we pass the following: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 ORDER [A] Appeal is allowed in part. [B] Claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.14,59,000/- as against Rs.10,19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Thereby there is a enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,40,000/-. However, while calculating the interest on the compensation amount, delay of 392 days is to be excluded. [C] Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within six [6] weeks from the date of certified copy of this judgment. Sofar as apportionment, release and deposit of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2829-DB MFA No. 103044 of 2018 compensation amount, award of the Tribunal remains unaltered. [D] Send a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court forthwith. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ /CT: VG LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 1