- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15305 MFA No. 100343 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100343 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. KOTRAPPAGOUDA @ KOTRUGOWDAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. KOTRAPPAGOUDA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BOTH ARE R/O. MALAGONDANAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: SHIKARIPURA, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA, NOW @ VAGEESH NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15305 MFA No. 100343 of 2024 AND: 1. SRI. SANTOSH S/O. YALLAPPA CHOUVAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KONANAKERI, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581193. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED JUDGE IN M.V.C.NO.695/2020 DATED 23RD AUGUST 2022 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR; COST OF THE APPEAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15305 MFA No. 100343 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri Girish S. Hulmani, learned counsel for the appellants who appears through Video Conference as well as Sri S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 who appears before this Court physically. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur in MVC 695 of 2020 dated 23.08.2022. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. On the ground that the deceased Kotragouda (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the deceased’ for brevity) died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2019, the first appellant being his wife and the second appellant being his son filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- in total. The tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of Rs.6,40,040/- as compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15305 MFA No. 100343 of 2024 Projecting that they are entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is filed. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are only aggrieved by the notional income taken by the tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the deceased as an agriculturist was earning huge sum as on the date of accident. However the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.13,250/- per month. Therefore enhancing the income, the appeal may be allowed. 5. On the other hand the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellants failed to produce any proof with regard to the occupation and earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident and therefore the tribunal basing on the notional income that is considered by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, for the relevant period took the notional income as Rs.13,250/- per month which needs no interference. 6. As rightly put forth no evidence whatsoever is produced by the appellants to establish that the deceased was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15305 MFA No. 100343 of 2024 holding any agricultural land as on the date of accident and was involved in cultivation. Without any proof to that effect the appellants claim to take the occupation of the deceased as agriculturalist and to award the amount claimed. But that cannot be done. For every plea and pleading, there should be supporting the evidence which should be convincing. However, in the case on hand without producing any evidence whatsoever, the appellant seeks to consider the deceased as an agriculturist which cannot be done. The tribunal having considered the facts of the case coupled with the evidence produced and basing the established principles of law awarded justifiable sum as compensation under all heads and therefore this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal. 7. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4