- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3816 MFA No. 200494 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200494 OF 2025 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: 1. SAKKUBAI W/O GOVIND DASAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. KRUTIKA D/O GOVIND DASAR, AGE: 11 YEARS, MINOR GUARDIAN BY APPELLANT NO.1 BOTH ARE R/O: SINDAGI R C., TALUK: BAGALKOT, NOW RESIDING AT KANAKDAS BADAVANE, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DATTATREYA S/O SHARANAPPA MOPAGAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KALAKERI SINDAGI TALUK - 586 118. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3816 MFA No. 200494 of 2025 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL/CLAIMS, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK, NICHOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI – 400 013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-V, AT VIJAYAPURA, IN M.V.C NO. 1358/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 11.09.2024 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-V, Vijayapura, in MVC no.1358/2022, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sanganagouda V.Biradar, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted on 03.09.2022, when Govind - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3816 MFA No. 200494 of 2025 Bhimappa Dasar was walking by side of Hunashyal-Kalakeri road, rider of motorcycle no.KA-28/EU-0469, rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him causing accident. Due to fatal injuries sustained, Govind died during treatment. Claiming compensation, his wife and daughter filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of motorcycle. 3. On service, owner did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds denying age, occupation, income of deceased and dependency of claimants. Even violation of terms and conditions of policy was also urged. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 was examined as PW.1 and an eye-witness as PW.2. Exs.P-1 to P-10 were got marked. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider leading to death of Sri Govind and claimants were held entitled for compensation from insurer as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3816 MFA No. 200494 of 2025 5. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal. It was submitted claimants were wife and daughter of deceased. It was submitted that deceased Govind was 31 years of age working as agriculturist and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Since it was not substantiated, tribunal considered his monthly income at Rs.14,750/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and added 40% towards future prospects by applying multiplier 16 and arrived at loss of dependency of Rs.26,43,264/-. It was submitted that tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- to claimant no.1 towards loss of consortium. However, tribunal did not award parental consortium to claimant no.2, but awarded Rs.15,000/- towards Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.26,43,264/- 2 Loss of spousal consortium Rs.40,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/- 4 Medical expenses and other incidental charges Rs.25,000/- 5 Funeral expenses & obsequies Rs.15,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total Rounded off Rs.27,53,264/- Rs.27,53,300/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3816 MFA No. 200494 of 2025 loss of love and affection which was not justified. It was submitted since claimant died during treatment, bills for Rs.32,798/- were produced. However, tribunal awarded lump- sump of Rs.15,000/- towards same which was not justified. It was submitted tribunal also erred in not awarding escalation on award under conventional heads. On said grounds sought for allowing appeal. 6. On other hand Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer, opposed appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award and certified copies of deposition and exhibits made available for perusal by learned counsel for claimant. 8. From above and since only claimants are in appeal, only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 9. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following reasons: 10. From above, there is no dispute about occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle leading to death of Govind - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3816 MFA No. 200494 of 2025 and claimants being entitled for compensation from insurer. Enhancement of compensation is sought on limited grounds. 11. Firstly, insofar as failure to award adequate compensation under conventional heads to claimant no.2, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others1, Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded to claimant no.2 towards parental consortium. Award of Rs.15,000/- by tribunal would not be justified. 12. Further as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others2, 10% escalation has to be added for every three years to award under conventional heads. Since six years have lapsed after decision of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 20% has to be added towards escalation which would be Rs.22,000/-. 13. It is seen that Ex.P8 is hospital bill for Rs.32,000/-. However, after availing discount, sum of Rs.19,400/- is paid. Though separate list of total medical bills is made available, 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3816 MFA No. 200494 of 2025 same is not supported with actual bills. Under such circumstances, award of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses by tribunal would be appropriate and there would be no scope for enhancement. 14. Thus, claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.47,000/- as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.26,43,264/- 2 Loss of spousal consortium Rs.40,000/- 3 Loss of filial consortium Rs.40,000/- 4 Medical expenses and other incidental charges Rs.25,000/- 5 Funeral expenses & obsequies Rs.15,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 7 Towards escalation (20% of 1,10,000) Rs.22,000/- Total Rs.28,00,264/- 15. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 11.09.2024 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-V, Vijayapura, in MVC no.1358/2022 is modified. ii. Claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.47,000/- over and above - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3816 MFA No. 200494 of 2025 awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. iii. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before Tribunal within six weeks. iv. On deposit, same could be kept in fixed deposit in name of claimant no.2 for period of five years. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28