- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103137 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETA W/O NAGAPPA PATIL, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O 398 NANATA PLOT BALOBAL, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 593107. 2. KUM. SOURABH S/O NAGAPPA PATIL, AGE. 10 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O 398 NANATA PLOT BALOBAL, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 593107. 3. KUM. PRATIKSHA D/O NAGAPPA PATIL AGE. 7 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O 398 NANATA PLOT BALOBAL, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 593107. 4. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O YALLAPPA PATIL AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O BALOBAL, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 593107. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 AND: 1. BIRAPPA S/O TAMANNA HARUGOPPA AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O 789B. WARD RAMANAND NAGAR, MARUTI MANDIRCHYA PATHIMAGE, TAL. KARVEER, DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA 416012. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CLUB ROAD BENLAGAVI, BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOLI KATA, APMC ROAD GOKAK 561307. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE SERVED FOR R1) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.1413/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GOKAK, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED 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:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is presented by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Gokak (for short, ‘Tribunal’) vide judgment and award dated 18.03.2024 passed in MVC No.1413/2022. 2. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the respondent claiming compensation of Rs.2 crores together with interest at the rate of 21% per annum on account of death of Nagappa in a road traffic accident on 03.05.2022 when he was returning from Yaragatti to Balobal on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EK-1339 with Balappa and Jayashree as pillion riders. It is the case of the claimants that, when deceased came near Yaraganvi village, the driver of Indica-Vista Car bearing registration No.MH- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 09/BX-6540 came from opposite direction in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased and because of the said accident, the deceased and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and Nagappa died in the hospital. 4. According to the claimants, deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as a Cane Manager at Indian Cane Power Limited, at Uttur village, Mudhol taluk from 05.09.2008 and was drawing a salary of Rs.31,200/- per month. He was the only bread earning member of the family. The claimants were depending on the deceased. Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased. All the claimants are suffering mentally and financially. 5. Both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation as because the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Car. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and resisted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 the claim petition by filing independent objection statements. The nature of the accident, avocation of the deceased, his income and dependency of the claimants of the deceased is denied by the respondents. Accordingly, the respondent No.1-driver of the Car was driving the Car in a moderate speed and it was deceased who was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and caused the accident. The respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended that it’s liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver was not holding the valid and effective Driving Licence. It is contended that, both the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation much less the claim made in the petition and prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Based upon the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed three relevant issues. 7. To prove the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 entered the witness box and examined herself as PW.1 and examined another witness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 Ex.P.18 and closed the claimants’ evidence. The respondents got marked Ex.R.1 to 13 and no oral evidence is adduced by the respondents. 8. The learned Tribunal on hearing the arguments and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, held that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver and both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation and respondents are liable for total compensation of Rs.42,16,980/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization under all the relevant heads. 9. Being aggrieved by the said findings, the respondents have not filed any independent appeals challenging the liability as well as the quantum. Whereas the claimants questions the quantum of compensation and seek enhancement in the compensation on the ground that, the Tribunal has not considered the actual income of the deceased. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 10. As in this case, the quantum of compensation is questioned by the claimants, it is argued by the counsel for the claimants that as the income of the deceased is not properly assessed and the income so assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and accordingly the compensation is required to be enhanced. 11. Respondents have not disputed about the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. But, counsel for respondent-insurer submits that, there are no grounds to enhance the compensation and prays to dismiss the appeal. Perused the records. In view of the grounds urged, the point that is to be decided is: “Whether the claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation as prays for?” 12. Our answer to the above point is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that the deceased died in a road traffic accident at the age of 37 years and he was earning - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 Rs.31,200/- per month as per the salary slip. To that effect the claimants have produced Ex.P.8, 19 and 20 so also, Ex.R.1 to 12 which clearly reveal that, the deceased was a Manager and his last salary was Rs.30,348/-. The claimants have produced the documents at Ex.P.10 to 16 which show that the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of accident. This fact is not disputed by any of the respondents. To show that the claimants were depending upon the deceased, Ex.P.7-Survivors Certificate is produced by the claimants. While calculating the income, as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Seti1, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects. As the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.30,348/-, Rs.200/- is to be deducted towards the professional tax. Thus, the total monthly income of the deceased is Rs.30,148/-, to this 40% is to be added towards the future prospects as per the judgment in Pranay Seti supra which comes to (Rs.30,148/- x 40/100) Rs.12,059/-. That means his total monthly income would be Rs.42,207/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 (Rs.30,148/- + Rs.12,059/-). As the deceased had 4 dependents, as per the judgment in Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2, 1/4th i.e., Rs.10,552/- (Rs.42,207/- x ¼) is to be deducted towards his personal expenses which comes to (Rs.42,207/- – Rs.10,552/-) Rs.31,655/-. As the age of the deceased is 37 years as per the judgment in Sarala Varma supra, the proper multiplier applicable is ‘15’, that means, the loss of dependency would be (Rs.31,655/- x 12 months x 15 multiplier) Rs.56,97,900/- as against the loss of dependency calculated by the Tribunal at Rs.40,96,980/-. 13. Sofar as the other conventional heads are concerned, as per the judgment in Pranay Seti supra, claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- and claimant Nos.2 to 4 being the dependents are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of love and affection which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- each. Sofar as the loss of estate is concerned Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses is concerned Rs.15,000/- 2 (2009) ACJ 1298 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 under these conventional heads is to be awarded. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under: SL.NO. VARIOUS HEADS AMOUNT[in Rs.] 1. Loss of dependency 56,97,900-00 2. Loss of estate 15,000-00 3. Funeral expenses 15,000-00 4. Loss of consortium (wife) 40,000-00 5. Love and affection (children and mother) 1,20,000-00 Total 58,87,900-00 14. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.58,87,900/- as against Rs.42,16,980/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.16,70,920/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 15. Sofar as liability is concerned, no document is produced by the respondents especially insurer to show that there is a violation of the policy conditions. As rightly held by the Tribunal, liability of the insurance company is joint - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 and several. The primary liability is on the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation and however, under law of indemnity, it is respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of certified copy of the judgment with accrued interest. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER [A] Appeal is allowed in part. [B] The claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.58,87,900/- as against Rs.42,16,980/- thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.16,70,920/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. [C] The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.1413/2022 dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Principal Senior - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Gokak is hereby modified to the above extent. [D] Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 to deposit the said enhanced compensation together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment before the Tribunal with accrued interest. [E] So far as the apportionment and deposit of the compensation amount and its disbursement so ordered by the Tribunal, it is maintained. [F] There shall be a modified preliminary decree accordingly. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1287-DB MFA No. 103137 of 2024 [G] Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. [H] No orders as to costs. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/ct-vg LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36