- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382 MFA No. 200339 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200339 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, OPP: RDCC BANK, GUNJ ROAD, RAICHUR – 584 102. NOW REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, SANGAMESHWARA COLONY, KALABURAGI – 585 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANJAY M JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NABSIN W/O AREEF, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ROUDKUNDA, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR NOW RESIDING AT LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR 584 101. 2. AZAZ S/O LATE IBRAHIM AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: MESON WORK, R/O: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR, NOW RESIDING AT LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382 MFA No. 200339 of 2023 3. AZAR MOHAMMED S/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O: ROUDKUNDA, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR, NOW RESIDING AT LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. 4. SANNA S/O LATE IBRAHIM, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: ROUDKUNDA, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR, NOW RESIDING AT LBS NAGAR, RAICHUR DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. 5. RAJENDRA PRASAD HARIJAN S/O JIYALAL HARIJAN, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY NO.KA-37/A-4544 R/O: ASHOK PUR CHARYAPATI PRATAPGAR UP NOW C/O GEETANJALI BULK CARRIERS PVT. LTD, NEAR SHEELA MEDICAL STORE GINIGERA, AT GINIGERA, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231. 6. GEETANJALI BULK CARRIERS PVT. LTD., NEAR SHEELA MEDICAL STORE, GINIGERA, AT GINIGERA, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.27/2017 AND MODIFY THE SAME BY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION AWARDED OF RS.17,32,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., AND BRING IT DOWN TO RS.14,15,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM, VIZ. BY RS.3,17,000/-, FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382 MFA No. 200339 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 12.10.2022 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Raichur, (for short, ‘tribunal’) in MVC no.27/2017, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sanjay M.Joshi, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award on quantum. It was submitted, as per claimants, on 23.03.2016 at 5:00 p.m., Ibrahim was travelling in Auto bearing no.KA-36/A-6737 near Sindhanur nala bridge, when driver of lorry bearing no.KA- 37/A-4544 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against auto causing accident. In accident, Ibrhaim and two others died. Alleging loss of dependency, his children filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. On contest, wherein, only insurer filed objections denying accident, age, occupation and income of deceased as well as violation of policy conditions. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Even claim petitions were filed in respect of other deaths that occurred in accident. All claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382 MFA No. 200339 of 2023 petitions were clubbed. Claimants were examined as PWs.1 to 3, Exs.P1 to P5 were marked in MVC no.27/2017, post-mortem examination report were marked as Exs.P6 and P7 in connected appeals. Insurer examined its official as RW.1. Exs.R1 to R12 were got marked. 4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver leading to death of Ibrahim, Rajju Sab and Mahiboob Bee @ Malanbee and claimants were held entitled for compensation from insurer. In MVC no.27/2017 it awarded compensation as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.16,12,000/- 2 Towards love and affection (Rs.20,000 x 4) Rs. 80,000/- 3 For transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs.17,32,000/- 5. Aggrieved by said award, insurer was in appeal. It was firstly submitted, tribunal erroneously took higher monthly income at Rs.9,000/- even though claimants had not led any evidence to establish income. It was submitted, claimants had stated age of deceased-Ibrahim as 45 years in claim petition - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382 MFA No. 200339 of 2023 however, tribunal considered his age as 35 years based on post-mortem examination report which was not justified. Consequently, there was error not only in multiplier applicable but also, about quantum of future prospects to be added. On above grounds, sought for allowing appeal and modifying award. 6. On other hand, Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned counsel for claimants opposed appeal. It was submitted, though there were four dependents, tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, deduction should have been at 1/4th as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others1. It was submitted, there is no scope for reduction on any of grounds urged by insurer and sought for dismissal of appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment and award. 8. From above, it is seen that insurer is in appeal challenging award on quantum. Therefore, point that would arise for consideration is: 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382 MFA No. 200339 of 2023 “Whether assessment of compensation by tribunal calls for interference?” 9. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following reasons: 10. Though in claim petition claimants stated that deceased-Ibrahim was agriculturist and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, they did not substantiate same with specific material. In absence, tribunal was justified in assessing it notionally. But, notional income for 2016 is Rs.8,750/- per month, tribunal was not justified in taking income at Rs.9,000/. Further, when claimants themselves stated age of deceased was 45 years and age of claimants, his children were shown as 18 years, 19 years, 20 years and 21 years respectively, it would be more probable that claimants had mentioned correct age in claim petition. Therefore, tribunal erred in determining age of deceased as 35 years, same has to be considered as 45 years. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), tribunal ought to have added future prospects to monthly income. Taking note of age of deceased as 45 years, his occupation as self-employed, it ought to have added 25% - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382 MFA No. 200339 of 2023 towards future prospects. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has held in case deceased was married person, deduction should be at 1/3rd, where number of claimants are four to six, deduction should be at 1/4th. Claimants are four in number, therefore, deduction should be at 1/4th and multiplier applicable to age group of deceased would be 14. Thus, re-computation of compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.13,78,125/- [(Rs.8,750 + 25%) x 12 x 14 - 1/4th] and same is awarded. 11. Apart from above, claimants would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since more than six years have lapsed after decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), there has to be addition of 20% on amount awarded under conventional heads. Thus, claimants would be entitled for Rs.2,28,000/- (Rs.1,90,000+20%) under conventional heads. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 12.10.2022 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3382 MFA No. 200339 of 2023 at Raichur, in MVC no.27/2017 is modified, claimants are held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.16,06,125/- as against Rs.17,32,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Same shall carry interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till payment. ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to tribunal for payment. Balance amount, if any, to be deposited by insurer within six weeks from today. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 Ct;Vk