- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13772 WP No. 106380 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106380 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RAMAPPA SHANKAREPPA JIRGAL SINCE DECEASED, PETITIONER NO.3 IS TREATED AS THE LR’S OF DECEASED PETITIONER NO.1 V.O.D. 18.09.2025. 2. SHANTA RAMAPPA JIRGAL SINCE DECEASED, PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 3 ARE TREATED AS THE LRS OF DECEASED PETITIONER NO.2, V.O.D. 05.04.2024. 3. LAXMI RAMAPPA JIRGAL , AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHEGUNASHI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 025, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), O AND M DIVISION, HESCOM, ATHANI TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SECTION OFFICER, O AND M DIVISION, HESCOM, ATHANI TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13772 WP No. 106380 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRCTION QUASHING THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2013 AND AWARD DTD.02.09.2013 IN O.P.NO.6/2012 PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELAGAVI PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND A1 RESPECTIVELY INSOFAR AS NON INCLUSION OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL SOURCE, INCOME FROM AGENT OF PACL INDIA LTD., AND AWARDING LESS COMPENSATION TOWARDS THE LOSS OF DEPENDENCY, LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION, LOSS OF ESTATE, EXPENSES TOWARDS FUNERAL AND POST DEATH RELIGIOUS CEREMONY AND THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.P.NO.6/2012 MAY BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The claimants have filed the subject petition seeking enhancement of compensation as determined by the permanent Lok Adalat insofar as the application of multiplier by the permanent Lok Adalath. 2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Surabhi Kulkarni appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Shri B.S. Kamate appearing for the respondents. 3. The facts which led to the claimants approaching this Court in the subject petition are akin to what is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13772 WP No. 106380 of 2014 narrated in the companion petition. Therefore, the narration of facts need not all over again be done in the case at hand. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis insofar as the claim for enhancement of compensation on two counts is completely answered by the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that insofar as the application of a particular multiplier, which the Tribunal has done at 11 is erroneous in the light of the said judgment. The Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) has held at paragraph No.42 as follows: “42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in para 19 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma read with para 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 42 is extracted below: (Sarla Verma case SCC p. 140). “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13772 WP No. 106380 of 2014 applying Susamma homas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 5. The Apex Court clearly holds that in such cases the multiplier that is to be applied is 16 and not 11. Therefore, the order of the Permanent Lok Adalath does run counter to the settled principles of law. In that light, the Compensation must be re-determined, applying the multiplier of 16 as against 11. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation that is granted again contrary to law insofar as loss of estate is concerned. The Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) held at paragraph No.59 as follows: “59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13772 WP No. 106380 of 2014 judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2. As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma, which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13772 WP No. 106380 of 2014 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 6. The Apex Court holds that reasonable figures on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses must be at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Therefore, the order insofar as it runs counter to the judgment of the Apex Court needs to be tweaked. The conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses shall be determined in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court. Particular reference is at paragraph No.59.8 of the aforesaid judgment. 7. In the light of the aforesaid two heads being erroneous and running counter to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the compensation will have to be reworked. Reworking of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13772 WP No. 106380 of 2014 compensation would determine the compensation in the following manner. Sl. No. Particulars Granted by Permanent Lok Adalat Correct calculation as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 1 • Salary of the deceased per month • Addition of 50% towards future prospectus • Total • 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses • Monthly salary after addition and deduction • Yearly salary Rs.8,000/- + Rs.4,000/- = Rs.12,000/- - Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- - 2. • Multiplier • Loss of dependency 11 (based on the age of mother of victim) Rs.72,000/- x 11 = Rs.7,92,000/- 16 (as per the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case Rs.72,000/- x 16 = Rs.11,52,000/- 3. • Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- Rs.40,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/- (as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi) 4. • Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs.15,000/- (as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13772 WP No. 106380 of 2014 5. • Funeral expenses Rs. 8,000/- Rs.15,000/- (as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi) Total compensation Rs.8,20,000/- Rs.13,02,000/- 8. The compensation so determined at Rs.8,20,000/- by the permanent Lok Adalat is enhanced to Rs.13,02,000/- in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (supra). The determination of compensation on other heads except the aforesaid heads shall remain intact. 9. With the above observations, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94.1