- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102198 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GEETA W/O DEVENDRAPPA LAMANI AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, 2. SANDESH S/O DEVENDRAPPA LAMANI AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. SHANTAWWA W/O LAXMAN LAMANI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, ALL ARE R/O: GUNDUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. (APPELL.NO.2 BEARING MINOR R/BY HER NATURAL MOTHER MINOR GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHVENDRA PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOUNESH S/O NAGAPPA BADIGER AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (OWNER OF MAHINDRA TEMPO NO.KA27/5060) R/O HANGAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO, DIVISION OFFICE, 127/A, BHAVANI ARCADE, NEAR, OLD BUS STAND, COTTON MARKET, OPP. BASAVA VANA, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.04 11:44:57 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.57/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HANGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC. THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 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 5.4.2019 passed in MVC No.57/2016 on the file of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT, Hangal1. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellants who are the wife, minor son and mother of the deceased Devendrappa Lamani, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act contending that on 28.03.2015, the deceased Devendrappa along with his 1 For short ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 daughter was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Chassis No.MD2A52CZ3DWF22844 and Engine No.JEZWDF14513 from Ankola via Sirsi-Girasinakoppa side towards Hangal. At that time, Mahindra Tempo bearing reg.No.KA-27/5060 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the said accident, the deceased Devendrappa & his daughter fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries and while on the way to hospital, they succumbed to the injuries. It is averred that the deceased Devendrappa was aged 32 years and earning Rs.21,000/- per month by working as Tiles Mestri. 3. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed written statement denying the age, income and avocation of the deceased and denied that the occurrence of the accident was due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending Mahindra Tempo vehicle. It was contended that the driver of the offending Tempo was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Hence, sought to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 4. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,38,000/- with 7% 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.Raghavendra Purohit, appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing income of the deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month, inasmuch as the deceased was working as Tiles Mestri and earning a sum of Rs.21,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards future prospects of the deceased. He further submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on the conventional heads is also on the lower side, he seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 6. Per contra, Sri. M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 impugned judgment and award and submits that since the appellants have not produced any acceptable evidence to substantiate the claim of the income of the deceased, the assessment of notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month by the Tribunal is just and proper. He further submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on the other heads is in consonance with the law and decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, which need not be interfered with by this Court in this appeal. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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, whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and proper? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 9. Answer to the above point would be in the “negative” for the following reasons: (a) The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Devendrappa, who was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident. (b) The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to establish the exact income of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence on record, this Court and the Lok Adalaths normally place reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to assess the income in the motor vehicle accident claims. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2015 and as per the chart referred to supra, the notional income of the deceased is Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 Court re-assesses the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. (c) The Tribunal committed an error in not awarding compensation towards loss of future prospects of the deceased. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 32 years and in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 16, which is correct. There are three dependents, hence, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency as under: Rs.8,000 + 40% x 12 X 16 x 2/3 = Rs.14,33,600/- (d) The Tribunal awarded a meager compensation under the conventional heads. Keeping in mind the law laid 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others3 as well as Pranay Sethi’s case supra, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses including 10% escalation. The appellants are entitled for the following modified compensation: 1 Loss of dependency Rs.14,33,600/- 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each) Rs. 1,32,000/- 3 Loss of Estate & funeral expenses Rs. 33,000/- Total Rs.15,98,600/- 10. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,98,600/- as against Rs.8,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment & award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants are entitled to total compensation 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9552-DB MFA No. 102198 of 2019 of Rs.15,98,600/- as against Rs.8,38,000/- 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 and disbursement shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. vi. Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. vii. Draw modified award accordingly. viii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52