- 1 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 200515 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEKRTC BIDAR, NOW THROUGH ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY *SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KAREMMA W/O AMBANNA SEDOLE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD VILLAGE DHUMANSUR R/O HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585330. 2. MAHENDRA S/O AMBANNA SEDOLE AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O REST AS ABOVE. 3. LAXMI D/O AMBANNA SEKOLE AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O REST AS ABOVE. 4. MOHAMED ASAD S/O M.A. GANI INAMDAR AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUS DRIVER R/O NOORKHAN AKHADA HUMNABAD, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR – 585330. …RESPONDENTS *Corrected vide Court order dtd.02.04.2025 Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; R4 – SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER JUDGMENT DATED 31-12-2018 AND AWARD DATED 07-01-2019 IN MVC NO.171/2017 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT HUMNABAD. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS” THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the Divisional Manager, NEKRTC, Bidar, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.12.2018 passed in MVC.No.171/2017 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Humnabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the mother and the siblings of one Jitendra filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, - 3 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) seeking compensation for the death of Sri. Jitendra in a road accident dated 08.02.2017. It is averred that when the deceased was proceeding towards Humnabad on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-39/L-5348 by following the traffic rules, the driver of the NEKRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-38/F-616 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle ridden by the deceased, as a result the deceased fell down and sustained head injuries. Later, he succumbed to the said injuries. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 24 years and was doing private job in Sequent Scientific Limited, Mangalore and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to the accidental death, the claimants have lost their dependency and hence, sought for compensation. 3. The respondent No.2-corporation entered appearance and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is averred that the age, income and avocation of the deceased is falsely claimed - 4 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 for higher compensation. It is further averred that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimants examined one of them as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16. The respondent did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month after deducting the permissible deductions, added 50% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased as 26 years, a multiplier of 17 was applied and compensation was awarded at Rs.20,40,000/- under the head of loss of dependency in total Rs.20,90,000/- at the rate of interest 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization - 5 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 of the compensation amount. Being aggrieved, the corporation is in appeal. 5. Sri. Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was bachelor. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed further error in adding 50% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects, as it should have been 40%. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, Sri. Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the deduction under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased has been rightly considered by the Tribunal which does not call for any modification. It is further submitted that the deceased was on permanent employment with a fixed salary. - 6 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 Hence, consideration of 50% addition under the head of loss of future prospects of deceased is correct, which also does not call for any modification. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is that: i) Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for interference in this appeal? 8. The pleading and evidence on record indicates that the son of the claimant No.1 and the brother of the other claimants i.e., Sri. Jitendra met with a road accident on 08.02.2017, sustained grievous injuries and later, he succumbed to those injuries. The claim petition and evidence on record further indicate that the deceased Jitendra was aged about 26 years and was working in a private company namely Sequent Scientific Limited, - 7 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 Mangalore and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In support of the claim, the claimants produced Ex.P9 to P16, copy of the letter of appointment, pay slips and letters issued by the employer. Ex.P9, the appointment letter clearly indicates the basic salary, HRA, conveyance allowance, education allowance and ad-hoc allowance. The said document further indicates that the services of the deceased will be subject to termination at any time by a three months’ written notice by either side. By reading the various clauses of the appointment order, it is clear that the appointment of the deceased with the Sequent Scientific Limited, Mangalore, was not a permanent employment but only of fixed salary. Hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the addition of future prospects would be 40% and not 50% as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants and as considered by the Tribunal, the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 8 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted herein below: “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.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Insofar as, deduction of 1/3rd by the Tribunal under the head of personal and living expenses is concerned, it is as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble - 9 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, it would be useful to extract the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment as under: “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally. 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 10 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income, of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two- third.” [Emphasis supplied] 10. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the claimants being the widowed mother and the siblings, the deduction should be 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased should depend on case to case basis, even if the deceased is bachelor. 11. In the case on hand, the 1st claimant is the widowed mother and other claimants are dependent- siblings of the deceased and they were students as on the - 11 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 date of death of the bread earner of the family. We are of the considered view that the tendency of the deceased to spend on himself would naturally be on lower side as there were three dependents in the family. Hence, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. 12. Insofar as assessment of income, deduction towards the personal and living expenses and application of multiplier of 17 by the Tribunal is concerned, it remains unaltered. Hence, the compensation is re-assessed as under: Loss of dependency: Rs.10,000/- + 40% future prospects (Rs.4,000/-) x 12 x 17 - 1/3rd = Rs.19,04,000/- 13. Having re-assessed the compensation, we are of the considered view that each of the claimants are entitled for loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the - 12 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram & others3. The compensation is re-assessed as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 19,04,000/- Loss of consortium (40,000/-x3) 1,20,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body 15,000/- Total Rs.20,54,000/- Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.20,54,000/- as against Rs.20,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the compensation amount. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following : 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 13 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 ORDER i. Appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.20,54,000/- as against Rs.20,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. iii. The appellant-corporation shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. iv. On such deposit, the apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made in terms of award of the Tribunal. v. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. - 14 - MFA NO.200515 OF 2019 vi. Draw modified award accordingly. vii. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR CT: PS