- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A. NO. 102618 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAVVA @ GANGAMMA W/O. MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA KAWALAGI @ CHALAVADI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. KUMARI JYOTI D/O. MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA KAWALAGI @ CHALAVADI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, BOTH ARE R/O. C/O. MARUTI HANAMANTHAPPA DASAR, MANTUR, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580023. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MALATESH, ADV. FOR SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. DURGAMBA MOTORS K. PVT. LTD., NH.66, HANGALUR, KUNDAPUR, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 DIST. UDUPI-576217, BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHRINATH COMPLEX, NCM, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.854/2016, ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBBALLI, DATED 28.02.2020 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, 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 MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 28.02.2020 passed in MVC No.854/2016 on the file of learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi1. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the claimants who are the mother and sister of the deceased Shashikumar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act contending that on 27.07.2016 at about 5:30 a.m., the deceased Shashikumar was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.KA-20/C-4543 from Bengaluru – Hubballi. When the bus came near Varur village, fire was found at its rear side, which thereafter extended to the entire bus. Though the passengers shouted about the fire, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus. The entire bus was burnt and some of the passengers suffered injuries while some died. Shashikumar was also one of the deceased who died on spot due to the burn injuries. 1 For short, ‘Tribunal’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 3. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed statement of objection denying the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It was contended that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated as explosive goods were carried in the bus. Hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation and sought to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.55,23,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel Sri Mahesh, appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per month contrary to the salary slip and other documents available on record. It is submitted that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.41,666/- per month. Hence, he seeks to reassess the income of the deceased. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has incorrectly added 40% of the assessed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 income under the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased, it should be 50% as the deceased was a permanent employee and aged 24 years at the time of accident. It is submitted that the award of consortium by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, he seeks to reassess the compensation by allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, Smt.Sharmila M.patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal taking note of Exs.P8 to P11 has rightly assessed income of the deceased which does not call for only modification. It is submitted that the salary shown in exhibit is not the gross salary, as the same is without deduction of income tax and professional tax. It is further submitted that the award of compensation on other heads is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 Company 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 fall for consideration in the present appeal is as under: “Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for interference? 9. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: 10. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that in an accident dated 27.07.2016, the deceased Shashikumar sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal recorded the finding on liability and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation for the death of Shashikumar by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per month. We have perused Exs.P8 to P11. The records indicate that the deceased was working as an Assistant Manager at ITIE Knowledge Solutions, Bengaluru. Perusal of the aforesaid exhibits clearly indicate that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.41,666/-. The said amount includes basic - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 pay, HRA and other permissible allowances which he has drawn before the accident. Considering the same, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per month which is reassessed at Rs.41,666/- per month. Having assessed the same, the income of the deceased as per the salary would be Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. The accident is of the year 2016. Taking note of the prevailing income tax for the said financial year, the income upto Rs.3,00,000/- was not taxable and above Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, it is 10%. Hence, the income tax is required to be paid on remaining Rs.2,00,000/- which would be Rs.20,000/-. The professional tax of Rs.2,400/- for a year is required to be deducted from the total income. Hence, after deducting income tax and professional tax, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.4,77,600/-. 11. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and was permanent employee. Hence, there should be an addition of 50% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2. As the deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, 50% should be deducted towards personal living expenses. Hence, the total compensation under the head of loss of dependency is as under: Rs.4,77,600 + 50% x 18 x 50% = Rs.64,47,600/- 12. The claimants being the mother and sister of the deceased are entitled consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/- each which includes 10% escalation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others3. Hence, compensation is reassessed as under: 1 Loss of dependency Rs.64,47,600/- 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each to appellants No.1 & 2) Rs.88,000/- 3 Transportation of dead body and Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 4 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Total Rs.65,68,600/- 13. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.65,68,600/- as against Rs.55,23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 14. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment & award passed by Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 65,68,600/- as against Rs.55,23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. iii. The enhanced compensation 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 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, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11135-DB MFA No. 102618 of 2022 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 CLK CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62