- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH 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. 104146 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. CHETANA D/O. SHATAVAJI SHINGANATH, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. JOSHI GALLI, SHUKRUWAR PETH, DHARWAD. 2. SHREES S/O. SHATAVAJI SHINGANATH, AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. JOSHI GALLI, SHUKRUWAR PETH, DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M. M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANSUR AHMAD S/O. ABDUL KHADAR MULLA, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 R/O. SHEELAVANTAR ONI, HOSAYALLAPUR, DHARWAD-580004, SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCE, KRISHI NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, BELLAD AND COMPANY, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030, (INSURER OF CAR REGN.NO.KA-28/N-5425) POLICY NO.3001/153169671/02/000, (VALID FROM 13-08-2020 TO 12-08-2021) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.398/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD, J, 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:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is filed by the claimant Nos.2 and 3 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide Judgment and Award dated 9th September 2022 passed in MVC NO.398/2021 by the III Additional District and Sessions & Special Judge, Dharwad. 2. The records of this appeal reveal that during pendency of the petition, claimant No.1 died and except claimant Nos.2 and 3, there are no other legal heirs. 3. Parties to this appeal are referred with reference to their rank before the Tribunal. 4. Claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against respondents seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- because of death of Meghana D/o Shantavaji Singnath in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.01.2021. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 5. As per the case of the claimants, on 31.01.2021, deceased Meghana and her 3 colleagues, after completion of their work, were traveling in a car owned by respondent No.1 being the Secretary to the Registrar, University of Agricultural Science, Krishi Nagar, Dharwad. He was driving car bearing Registration No. KA-28/N-5425 and proceeding on NH-63 near Yekkeguli, Masti Katta. At that time, driver of the said car while overtaking a tanker lorry lost control of his car and dashed to a KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-26/F-1083. Because of this accident, deceased and her 2 colleagues and driver i.e., respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries to their person. They were taken to Ankola Government Hospital for treatment. Deceased Meghana sustained severe traumatic brain injury and was unconscious. She was shifted to Suchirayu Hospital, Hubli for treatment but, after 3 days of the accident, she died in the Hospital on 02.02.2021. The claimants spent more than five lakhs rupees towards medical and other expenses. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 compensation. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition as prayed for. 6. In response of the notice, respondent No.2 appeared whereas, respondent No.1 remained absent and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the entire assertions made in the petition and also the accident, employment of the deceased as well as spending of medical expenses as alleged by the claimants. There was no negligence on the part of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. Hence, it is prayed by respondent No.2 to dismiss petition. 7. Based upon the rival contentions placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed in all 3 relevant issues. To prove the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and closed claimants’ evidence. There is no evidence placed on record by the respondents either oral or documentary. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has admitted the issuance of the policy and its validity on the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 day of the accident. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, no appeal is preferred by respondent No.2 thereby, respondent no.2 admits the liability fastened on it so also, rash and negligent driving of the car by respondent No.1. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the quantum of award by the Tribunal, now the claimant nos.2 and 3 being the sister and brother of deceased Meghana are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. The learned counsel for the claimants Sri M.M.Hiremath with all vehemence would submit that, the deceased was doing a private employment and was earning sufficient income, therefore, as the Tribunal has not properly considered the income of the deceased, the compensation so award by the Tribunal requires enhancement. In support of his evidence, he relied upon various documents and submits that she was a qualified person having passed M.Com examination and claimants have produced salary certificate. Since she was a post-graduate, she was earning sufficient - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 income and the pass book issued by the Karnataka Bank shows her income. Therefore, he submits to enhance the compensation as prayed. 10. As against this submission, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori admits about non-filing of appeal by the Insurance Company, but, disputes the quantum of compensation and denies the grounds so made out in the appeal memo and prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both the side. Perused the records. The only point that would arise for our consideration is: “Whether, claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as prayed?” 12. To show that deceased Meghana was an M.com Graduate, the claimants have produced her M.Com 4th Semester Marks Card wherein it shows that, she has passed the said examination in first class and has also earned the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 credit points as stated in her marks card. She was a meritorious student right through as per the claimants. To show that, she has passed the SSLC examination in first class, they have produced Ex. P10 her SSLC marks card showing her date of birth as 09.09.1996. To show that deceased was earning substantial salary, pass book is produced vide Ex.P8. Her last drawn salary is shown at Rs.15,945/- and she used to withdraw substantial money towards maintenance of the family as per Ex.P8. She used to withdraw the amount of Rs.24,000/- per month. Thus, she was sufficiently earning from her employment as per these documents. 13. It is the case of the claimants that, they have spent substantial money towards medical expenses from the date of accident till her death. They have produced the medical bills worth Rs.1,69,282.18. While marking these documents, respondents have not raised any objections. Thus, the claimants being the sister and brother of the deceased aged 21 and 18 years at the time of filing the petition must be depending upon the deceased as their - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 avocation is shown as students. This possibility cannot be ruled out. Even the mother of the deceased, Prathibha died during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal who was aged 51 years and was doing the house- hold work as per the submission of the counsel for the claimants. Now these claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the dependents of the deceased have lost their earning member in the family. As per the argument of the counsel for the claimants, the claimants have to be awarded substantially. 14. In view of the qualification of the deceased and also her source of income through employment stated in the passbook, it can not be ruled out that deceased was sufficiently earning. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as the evidence placed on record by the claimants, her income is to be assessed by calculating her average income which is to be assessed at Rs.18,000/- per month. As she was doing the private employment and was aged 24 years at the time of her death, as per the judgment - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Pranay Sethi1, 40% i.e., Rs.7,200/- is to be added towards her future prospects, it comes to Rs.25,200/-. As she was spinster, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr2, 50% is to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses i.e., Rs.25,200/- - Rs.12,600/- which comes to the Rs.12,600/-per month. This amount is required to be calculated annually which comes to Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.12,600 x 12 months). As per Sarla Verma supra this amount is to be multiplied by multiplier `18’ as she was aged 24 years at the time of death which comes to Rs.27,21,600/-. 16. Towards `Loss of consortium’ it is to be awarded Rs.40,000/- each to both the claimants i.e., Rs.80,000/-. So far as other conventional heads are concerned, in addition to the medical expenses, they must also have spent certain amount towards 'conveyance charges, attendant 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 AIR 2009 SC 3140 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 charges' etc. The Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs.1,70,000/- which in our opinion, is just and proper. Towards 'loss of estate' Rs.15,000/- and towards 'Transportation & Funeral Expenses' Rs.15,000/- is to be awarded. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the compensation under various heads as per table below: Sl.No. Heads Amount Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 27,21,600-00 2. Medical Expenses 1,70,000-00 4. Loss of consortium 80,000-00 5. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 6. Transportation & Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 Total 30,01,600.00 17. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.30,01,600/- as against Rs.17,52,000/- thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.12,49,600/- as compensation. 18. Sofar as liability is concerned, there is no evidence placed on record by the respondent No.2 that, there is violation of the any policy conditions. Validity of Insurance - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 Policy as on the date of the accident is not denied. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation and their liability is joint and several, however, respondent No.2 under 'law of indemnity', has to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in-part. ii. They are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.30,01,600/- as against Rs.17,52,000/- thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.12,49,600/- as compensation. iii. The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.398/2021 dated 09.09.2022 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions & Special Judge, Dharwad, is hereby modified to the above extent. iv. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:662-DB MFA No. 104146 of 2022 compensation. However, respondent no.2 to deposit the said enhanced compensation together with interest @6%p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, before the Tribunal. v. Sofar as the apportionment and deposit of the compensation amount and its disbursement so ordered by the Tribunal, it is maintained. vi. There shall be a modified award accordingly. vii. Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK/ct-vg, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46