SMT. JEEVAMMA v. SATISH

AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The claimant has presented this appeal seeking enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 6th March 2023 passed in MVC No.605/2021 by the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-V, Ballari.

2. That appellant claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act on account of death of her husband Sri Baradwajulu in a road traffic accident that took place on 7.7.2021 at 6.00 a.m. when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-34EB 9929 driven by respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 no.1 towards bus stand in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and when they came near Jilla Kaigarika office, Hospet Road, drove his vehicle in high speed and dashed to a pedestrian by name Pradeep deceased fell down from the motor cycle sustained grievous injuries all over the body and thereafter died in the Hospital. The claimant being his wife had spent substantial money towards medical expenses, transportation of dead body, funeral and other expenses. According to claimant, deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 50 years at the time of accident and was a Tailor by occupation earning Rs.1,000/-per day. The claimant was completely depending upon him and because of untimely death of deceased, who was the bread earner in the family, the claimant is suffering a lot and she has lost love and affection of her husband and hence, prayed to award the compensation as prayed in the petition.

3. Before the Tribunal, both the respondents appeared and opposed the petition by filing detailed objections independently denying entire assertions made in the petition. It is contended by respondent no.1 that, as the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 said vehicle was insured with respondent no.2, if at all respondent no.1 is liable to pay the compensation, it is respondent no.2 to pay the same.

4. So far as respondent no.2 is concerned, the very nature of the accident, age of the deceased, his profession, monthly income etc., is denied. According to respondent no.2, the rider of motor bike is not holding effective driving licence and thereby, respondent no.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four relevant issues. To prove the case of the claimants, she herself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P22. She also examined two other witnesses by name Raju and Pradeep as PWs. 2 and 3 and closed her evidence.

6. Respondent No.2 has produced the copy of the policy as per Ex.R1. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by respondent no.1. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 placed on record by both the side, held that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent riding of the motor bike but, however, it is held that respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation as policy was admitted as on the date of the accident and respondent no.2 indemnify. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount Rs. 12,22,650-00

4. Loss of Dependency Loss of Estate 15,000-00 Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 Spousal Consortium 40,000-00 Total 12,92,650-00

7. Being aggrieved by the said liability, the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the liability have become final. Now the claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023

8. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased was a tailor by occupation and was earning Rs.1,000/-per day, but, the Tribunal has considered his notional income at Rs.14,250/- per month. This income so arrived at by the Tribunal is improper and illegal. The Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects at the rate of 25%. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident. The Tribunal wrongly deducted 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses. The claimant is wife and was completely depending upon the deceased and not on his bachelor son. Thus, it is prayed by the claimant to enhance the compensation.

9. As against this submission, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer Sri Nagaraj Kolloori would submit that, as claimant is stated to be dependent, as she was sole dependent, rightly the Tribunal has deducted 50% of his income towards his personal expenses. He would further submit that, as per the PM report, the age of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 deceased is shown as 50 years. In the absence of necessary documents with regard to the income of the deceased rightly the Tribunal has assessed the income and deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses. He justifies the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. We have given our anxious consideration towards submissions of both the side and perused the record. The point that would arise for our consideration is, “Whether claimant has made out any acceptable ground enhance compensation?”

11. The Tribunal, while considering the income of the deceased has taken into consideration the occupation of the deceased as a Tailor. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the proof of income of the deceased, the notional income has to be considered. The accident has taken place in the year 2021 and hence his notional income is assessed at Rs.14,250/-. As per the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd., - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 V/s. Pranay Sethi1, to this income, 10% i.e., Rs.1,425/- (10% of Rs.14,250) is to be added towards future prospects as the deceased was self-employed and was aged 50 years. Thus, the total income would be Rs.15,675/- (Rs.14,250 + Rs.1,425/-). As per the judgment in Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.2, as the deceased was having his wife and son, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. In view of the said judgment, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. 1/3rd of Rs.15,675/- would be Rs.5,225/-., Thus, it would be Rs.10,450/- (Rs.15,675 - Rs.5,225/-). This would be the monthly income of the deceased. It is to be multiplied with `12’ to calculate annually. As the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident as per the judgment in Sarla Verma supra, the proper multiplier that is applicable is `13’ which comes to Rs.16,30,200/-. (Rs.10,450 x 12 months x '13' multiplier). Thus, the loss of dependency would be Rs.16,30,200/-. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023

12. So far as conventional heads are concerned, the Tribunal has rightly considered that, claimant is entitled for compensation towards `Loss of Estate’ at Rs.15,000/-, funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2). This awarding of compensation under the aforesaid conventional heads is in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi supra. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for enhancement of the compensation which reads as below: Sl. No. 1. 2.

3. 4. Heads Loss of dependency Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 x 2) Loss of Estate Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Amount in Rs. 16,30,200/- 80,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- TOTAL 17,40,200/-

13. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.17,40,200/- as against Rs.12,92,650/- thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.4,47,550/-. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023

14. So far as liability is concerned, as discussed above, there is not denial of the liability by the respondents. Hence, respondent nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and however, respondent no.2 to deposit the total compensation of Rs.17,40,200/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,47,550/-. Accordingly the point raised supra is answered partly in the affirmative. Resultantly, we pass the following: i. ii. ORDER Appeal is allowed in-part. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.17,40,200/- as against Rs.12,92,650/- thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.4,47,550/- together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 iii. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of certified copy of this judgment. iv. So far as disbursement and deposit of compensation in fixed deposit, the award of the Tribunal, remains unaltered. v. Registry to draw the modified award in the above terms. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [SMT. JEEVAMMA W/O LATE BHARADWAJULU VS. SATISH S/O, LATE, BHARADWAJULU AND ANOTHER]

07.08.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.12,92,650/- to the Claimant, and this Court has allowed the appeal granting a sum of Rs.17,40,200/-with enhancement in a sum of Rs.4,47,550/-. This Court has computed the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.16,30,200/- taking the income of the deceased in a sum of Rs.14,250/- [as done by Tribunal] and with an addition of 10% towards deceased’s future prospects. This Court deducted one-third [1/3] of such income towards the deceased’s personal expenses as against the deduction of one-half [1/2]. This Court has opined that the deduction must be one-third because not only claimant [his wife] even a son has survived the deceased. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 The present application for modification contending that this Court could not have computed the loss of dependency deducting one-third [1/3] towards personal expenses. In support of the application, Sri Nagaraj C Kalloori [the learned counsel for the Insurer] submits that the claimant's son has not joined her in making the claim petition and therefore the deduction must be based only on the dependency of the claimant. This Court has called for trial Court records to verify. The records are perused. The claimant, in her cross- examination, is categorical that the deceased is survived by her and only by her son [the first respondent] who admittedly was riding motorcycle at the time of the accident with his father on the pillion. The Tribunal has tendered a categorical finding that the first respondent was rash and negligent. This Court has not interfered with the Tribunal’s finding that the first respondent is rash and negligent, and with this finding there cannot be indemnification to his advantage. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded by the request of Sri Manjunath G. Patil [the learned counsel for the claimant] to retain the deduction towards personal expenses at one- - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 third. There is an error apparent, and the loss of dependency must be recomputed taking the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased at 50%. However, this Court does not find any error in granting consortium of Rs.80,000/- to the claimant because the deceased as left behind his wife and son. The loss of dependency is computed thus, and the total compensation will be in sum of Rs.12,22,650/- with enhancement in a sum of Rs.40,000/- which is established by this comparative table. The table for loss of dependency: Particulars Monthly Income Annual Income Addition Prospects at 10% towards Amount Rs.14,250/- Rs.1,71,000/- future Rs.17,100/- Annual towards future prospects. Income with addition Rs.1,88,100/- Deduction 50% personal expenditure. towards Rs.94,050/- Income after deduction towards personal expenditure. Rs.94,050/- Multiplier applicable is ‘13’ Rs.12,22,650/- - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 The comparative table Sl.No Heads

2. Loss of Dependency Loss of Consortium Amount Awarded by Tribunal Amount Awarded by this Court Rs.12,22,650/- Rs.12,22,650/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/-

3. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-

4. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.12,92,650/- Rs.13,32,650/- Enhancement Rs.40,000/- Consequentially, the claimant would be entitled to the enhancement in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. As such, the application is allowed clarifying that the claimant will be entitled for a total sum of Rs.13,32,650/- [including a sum of Rs.12,92,650/- granted by the Tribunal]. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1286-DB MFA No. 104429 of 2023 This order shall be read as part of this Court's order dated 23.01.2025, and the award shall be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE NV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1