- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101858 OF 2021 C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100150 OF 2022 IN MFA No.101858 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. SHEKAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BILEYALI AGE. 57 YEARS OCC. AGRI AND DRIVER R/O.BELAVANAKI, TQ. RON DIST. GADAG-582101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADV.) AND: 1. RACHAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA HOMBAL AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELAVANAKI, TQ. RON DIST. GADAG-582101. 2. SMT RATNAVVA W/O. RACHAPPA HOMBAL AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O. BELAVANAKI, TQ. RON DIST. GADAG-582101. 3. VEERUPAKSHAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA MENASINAKAYI Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. BANNIKOPPA, TQ. YALABURGA DIST. KOPPAL-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADV FOR R1 & R2, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 01.09.2022) This MFA FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.90/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RON, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA CROSS OBJECTION No.100150 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. RACHAPPA S/O LAXAMAPA HOMBAL AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELAVANAKI, TQ.RON, DIST. GADAG-582209. 2. SHRI. RATNAVVA W/O RACHAPA HOMBAL AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BELAVANAKI, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582209. … CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. SHEKAPPA S/O SANGAPPA BILEYALI AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND DRIVER R/O. BELAVANAKI TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582209. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 2. SHRI. VEERUPAKSHAPPA S/O. MALLAPA MENASINAKAYI AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BANNIKOPPA, TQ. YALABURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583238. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADV FOR R1, R2- DECEASED) This MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.101858/2021 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 90/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RON, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION & ORDERS RESPECTIVELY, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) The appeal and cross objection arise from the judgment and award dated 12.10.2021, passed in MVC No.90/2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ron. 2. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal and cross objection are as follows : - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the claimants, filed a claim petition against the appellant and respondent No.3 i.e., respondent No.2 in the claim petition. It is the case of claimants that, on 27.02.2019, deceased Iranna Hombal and others went to the bricks Manufacturing Unit and after completion of the work, when he was sleeping, the appellant/respondent No.1 therein, who is the driver of the New Holland Tractor bearing registration No.KA-34/TA-1238 belonging to respondent No.3 herein, which was attached to a water tank, negligently, drove the tractor, and it ran on the head of Iranna Hombal. Because of the impact, Iranna Hombal died on the spot. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, being the legal heirs of deceased Iranna Hombal, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in respect of the death of Iranna, who died in a motor vehicle accident and they sought for compensation, Rs.30,00,000/-. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 29 years as of the date of the accident. He was a graduate doing guest lecturing in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 villages in several schools and was getting an income of Rs.25,000/- from his avocations. It is contended that he was getting an income of Rs.3,00,000/- per year from agricultural sources. Hence, due to the death of Iranna, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, are put to starvation. It is contended that, the deceased Iranna was the only bread earner in the family. Hence, the claim petition. 3. Respondent No.1/appellant filed a claim petition denying the averments made in the claim petition and prays to dismiss the claim petition against him. It is contended that respondent No.3 was the owner of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-34/TA-1238 as on 23.03.2019 and the accident occurred on 27.02.2019. It is stated that, as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not registered in the name of respondent No.1(therein). A complaint was lodged on 27.02.2019. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 4. Respondent No.2, before the Tribunal, filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that, he is not a necessary party to the petition. The water tank was not there at the time of the accident. It has been falsely implicated. He has no information with respect to the accident. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. The Tribunal, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased Iranna died on 27.02.2019 because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tractor bearing KA-34/TA-1238 ? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the claim as sought ? 3) What order or award ? 6. To substantiate their claim petition, claimant No.2 examined herself as PW.1 and marked 51 documents - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 as Exs.P-1 to P-51. Respondent No.1/appellant examined himself as RW.1 and marked 3 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3. 7. After recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part with costs. It is held that respondent Nos.1 and 2/climants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,40,700/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till final realization from respondent No.1. Further, respondent No.1 was directed to deposit the above said total amount with interest before the Tribunal within three months from the date of the order. 8. Respondent No.1/appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 12.10.2021 passed in MVC No.90/2019, preferred an appeal in MFA No.101858/2021 and the claimants filed cross-objection in MFA Cross - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 objection No.100150/2022 seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.1 submits that, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was not registered in the appellant’s name. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-objection. 11. Learned counsel for claimants submits that the accident occurred on 2019. As the claimants have not produced any income proof of deceased Iranna, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased as per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. As per the chart, for 2019, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 notional income is Rs.13,250/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month which is an lower side. He also submitted that, the Tribunal has not added future prospects as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1 and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He also submitted that, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No.1/appellant and the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on respondent No.1/appellant. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal and to allow the cross objection. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points that arise for our consideration are: 1 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 i) Whether the appellant proves that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous? ii) Whether the claimants prove that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side? iii) What order? 14. Point No.(i): There is no dispute that Iranna Hombal died in a road traffic accident on 27.02.2019, a complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle as per Ex.P.1. The claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 have produced the documents, where Ex.P-1 is the copy of the charge-sheet which discloses that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. It is the appellant’s case that, as of the date of accident, the vehicle was not registered in his name. The complaint was lodged on 27.02.2019. From the perusal of the Ex.R-1-Registration certificate issued by the RTO, Gadag, it discloses that the tractor was registered on 12.08.2011 in the name of the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 appellant and it is valid till 12.08.2026. Further, it discloses that the appellant was/is the owner of the said tractor as of the date of the accident and subsequently, the said vehicle was transferred in the name of respondent No.3 herein. As of the date of the accident, the said vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that as of the date of the accident, the appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant has failed to establish that he was not the owner of the vehicle as of the date of the accident. The Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on respondent No.1. 15. In view of the above discussion, we answer Point No.(i) in the negative. 16. Point No.(ii): The claimants have taken a contention that the deceased was a graduate and was doing a guest lecturing in villages in several schools and getting monthly income of Rs.25,000/- from his avocation and was also getting yearly income of Rs.3,00,000/- from - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 agriculture. To substantiate their claim, the claimants have not produced any income proof of the deceased. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which is on the lower side. Admittedly, the accident occurred in 2019. As per the chart, the notional income is Rs.13,250/- per month. The age of the deceased was 29 years. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% future prospects have to be added to the notional income which come to Rs.18,550/- i.e. (Rs.13,250 + 5,300(40%)). There are two claimants, 1/3rd has to be deducted out of Rs.18,550/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, which come to Rs. 12,367/-(i.e. Rs.18,550- 6,183/-). Thus, we assess notional income at Rs.12,367/- per month. The deceased was aged 29 years, the multiplier applicable to his age group is 17 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.25,22,868/- (12,367 X 12 X 17) under the head loss of dependency. There are two claimants. Each claimant is entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.40,000/-x2=Rs.80,000/-. The claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.26,32,868/- as against Rs.7,40,700/-. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.18,92,168/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.(ii) in the affirmative. 18. Point No.(iii): In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following 2 (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant in MFA No.101858/2021 is dismissed. MFA Cross objection No.100150/2022 is allowed. The judgment and award dated 12.10.2021 passed in MVC No.90/2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ron, is modified. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.18,92,168/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As the claim petition was dismissed against respondent No.2 by the Tribunal, in the cross-objection, as respondent No.2 is dead, there is no necessity to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 on record. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:714-DB MFA No. 101858 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100150 of 2022 Office is directed to transfer the amount in deposit to the Tribunal concerned. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE kmv