- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3877 MFA No. 201314 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201314 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE SANGAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SMT. KANCHAMMA W/O PARAMESHAPPA, AGE : 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O AMDIHAL VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR- 584 122. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. VIJAYLAXMI P. NAIKODI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LAKKAPPA S/O BALAPPA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA.16/B-9918, R/O KAMALADINNI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3877 MFA No. 201314 of 2015 TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR- 584 122. 2. SRI M. DORAI SWAMY S/O MUTHUSWAMY, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA.16/B-9918, R/O SRI SHAKTI BRICKS INDUSTRIES NAGARAJ, NAYAKARAKATTE, NEAR NH-14, HIREYUR, DIST. CHITRADURGA-572 143. 3. THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.113/114, 5TH THEYAGARAYA ROAD, 4TH FLOOR, MEENA KAMPALA ARCEDE, T-NAGAR, CHENNAI-600017. …RESPONDENTS (BY V/O DATED 19.02.2025 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH; SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.05.2015 PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE (MACT) AT RAICHUR IN MVC NO. 324/2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3877 MFA No. 201314 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI) Challenging judgment and award dated 02.05.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur (for short ‘tribunal’) in MVC no.324/2014, this appeal is filed. 2. Smt.Vijayalakshmi P.Naikodi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Basavaraj R.Math, submitted that appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 06.04.2014, Sangappa was traveling lorry no.KA-16/B-9091, when driver of another lorry no.KA-16/B- 9918, drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Sangappa while reversing it, causing his death on spot. His wife and mother filed claim petition against driver, owner and insurer of offending lorry under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. On contest, wherein respondents opposed claim petition on all grounds including denying age, occupation, income and dependency as well as alleging violation of terms and conditions of policy, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.8 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3877 MFA No. 201314 of 2015 were got marked. Copies of driving licence and insurance policy were got marked as Exs.R1 and R2 with consent. 4. On consideration, tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver and claimants were entitled for compensation as follows: Sl.no. Heads of Compensation Amount in ` 1 Loss of dependency 8,16,000/- 2 Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 3 Loss of estate 10,000/- 4 Funeral and obsequies expenses 25,000/- Total 9,51,000/- 5. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal. It was firstly submitted, claimants had stated that deceased Sangappa was working as driver of lorry and earning `10,000/- per month as salary and `100/- per day as bata. They had also produced copy of driving licence as Ex.P.8. However, tribunal assessed his monthly income notionally at `6,000/- and awarded inadequate compensation. It was further submitted, tribunal also did not add future prospects. Therefore, enhancement was sought. 6. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3877 MFA No. 201314 of 2015 7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 8. From above and since only claimants are in appeal, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement as sought for?” 9. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following reasons: 10. Though claimants stated that deceased was driver and earning `10,000/- per month as salary + `3,000/- per month as bata. Same was not substantiated. However they have produced driving licence of deceased marked as Ex.P.8. Perusal of same would indicate that deceased was possessing driving licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) with transport endorsement and deceased was also in possession of drivers badge for heavy passenger vehicle (HPV). Same would substantiate his avocation. This Court in MFA no.201173/2021 has considered monthly income of driver holding driving licence with transport endorsement and licence to drive heavy vehicle at `20,000/- per month. However, since claimants themselves - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3877 MFA No. 201314 of 2015 have stated that deceased was earning `10,000/- per month as salary + `100/- per day as bhata i.e., `3,000/- per month, `13,000/- has to be determined as his monthly income. 11. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1, claimants would be entitled for addition of future prospects to monthly income. Since, deceased was stated to be 28 years of age and was self-employed, future prospects at 40% has to be added. Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of ‘17’. Thus, computation towards loss of future income would be as follows:- [(`13,000 + 40%) - 1/3rd] X 12 X 17 = `24,75,132/-. Same is awarded to claimants. 12. It is seen tribunal awarded `1.00 lakh towards loss of consortium, `10,000/- towards loss of estate and `25,000/- towards funeral expenses which would not be in consonance with ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). However, taking note of fact that claimants are wife and mother of 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3877 MFA No. 201314 of 2015 deceased, they would be entitled for `40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium and filial consortium and `15,000/- towards loss of estate and `15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Since more than six years have lapsed after rendering of decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), they would be entitled for addition of 20% i.e., `1,32,000/-, award under conventional heads though marginally excess by `3,000/- is left undisturbed. Thus, total compensation would be `26,10,132/-. 13. As per order dated 08.01.2025, claimants were held disentitled for interest for delay period of 2475 days. Therefore, claimants would not be entitled for interest for said period. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following : ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 02.05.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur, in MVC no.324/2014, is modified, claimants are entitled for compensation of `26,10,132/- as against `9,51,000/- awarded by tribunal, with interest @ 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit excluding for 2475 days. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3877 MFA No. 201314 of 2015 ii. Out of enhanced compensation, `4.00 lakhs with accrued interest is apportioned in favour of claimant no.2 - mother. Same is ordered to be released. iii. Remaining amount is apportioned in favour of claimant no.1 – wife. On deposit, 50% is ordered to be released and remaining 50% is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank or postal department earning highest interest, for a period of five years with provision for receipt of interest. iv. Insurer is directed to deposit same before tribunal with interest at 6% from date of petition, till payment within six weeks. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT:SI