- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100592 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SMT. YASHAMIN ALLIBEG @ ABDULRASHID MULLA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. VIVEKANAND ROAD, GADAG, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG-582101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRAVEEN S/O. THAMMAJI KULKARNI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. DR. D.V. KULAKARNI, ”VASANTH BURBURE LAYOUT, PANCHAXARI NAGAR, ANNADANESHWAR NAGAR, MASARI, GADAG-582101. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, RENUKA ARCAE, STATION ROAD, OPP. THONTADARAYA MATH, GADAG-582101. 3. ASIF S/O. MAKBULSAB DODDAMANI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. KALASAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: GADAG-582103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R2; R3-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GADAG AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED JUDGE IN M.V.C. NO.206/2015 DATED 02.11.2019 AND ENHANCE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION; COST OF THE APPEAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.G.S.Hulmani, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.206/2015 dated 02.11.2019. Exhibiting its opinion that the appellant cannot be termed to the legal heir of her deceased mother and thereby she is not entitled for any compensation towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.56,000/- only as compensation covering the heads medical expenses, loss of estate, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Smt.Khairunnisa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2015. Her husband pre-deceased her. The only legal heir is the appellant herein who is none other than her daughter. The deceased performed the marriage of the appellant. The appellant was residing at her matrimonial home. However, the deceased as a domestic helper was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was contributing major portion of her earnings to support her daughter at her in-laws' place. On the death of the deceased, the appellant lost the source of livelihood. Therefore she filed a petition claiming compensation. However holding that a married daughter cannot be considered to be the dependent of her mother, the Tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation under the head loss of dependency. Learned counsel thereby seeks to do justice. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 4. On the other hand, the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant was living with her husband and child separately as on the date of accident. Therefore the appellant cannot be termed to be the dependent of the deceased and thus the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim of the appellant to grant compensation towards loss of dependency. 5. It is not in dispute that except the appellant herein, there are no other legal heirs to the deceased. Equally it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged around 50 years by the date of accident. Thus whatever amount the deceased earns, keeping aside the amount required for her livelihood and her necessities, the rest of the amount would be contributed for the welfare of her daughter that is the appellant herein. Also it is clearly brought on record that after the accident, it is the appellant who got the deceased treated at hospital by incurring all the necessary medical expenditure. Therefore, this Court is of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 the view that the appellant is certainly entitled to be compensated for loss of dependency. 6. Therefore taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month which figure is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.2, adding 25% towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi1, as the deceased lost her life at the age of 50 years, deducting 50% of the earnings towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for herself had she been alive, as the dependent is only one that is the appellant herein and applying appropriate multiplier ‘13’, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of dependency is as follows: Heads Amount in Rs. Notional income 8,000.00 Annual income 96,000.00 On adding 25% towards future prospects 1,20,000.00 On deducting 50% towards personal and 60,000.00 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 living expenses Loss of dependency, on applying appropriate multiplier ‘13’ 7,80,000.00 7. Therefore, this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- towards loss of dependency. Together with the said amount the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.26,000/- towards the medical expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. Therefore, the total sum which the appellant is entitled to receive as compensation is as under: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 7,80,000.00 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 loss of estate 15,000.00 Medical expenses 26,000.00 loss of parental consortium 40,000.00 TOTAL 8,76,000.00 8. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,76,000/- in total as compensation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 9. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag through orders in MVC No.206/2015 dated 02.11.2019 is enhanced from Rs.56,000/- to Rs.8,76,000/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit except for a period of delay of 364 days as per orders on I.A. No.1/2021. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13922 MFA No. 100592 of 2022 (v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- initially. (vi) Rest of the amount shall be kept in any interest yielding fixed deposit scheme of any nationalized bank for a period of 7 years and on completion of the said period, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25