Karnataka High Court
Kasturbai And Anr vs Ganesh And Anr on 9 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:100
MFA No. 201874 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201874 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. KASTURBAI W/O LATE MARUTIRAO,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. JOSHI NAGAR,
BHALKI, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585328.
2. BALAJI S/O LATE MARUTIRAO,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Digitally signed
by R/O JOSHI NAGAR,
LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH BHALKI, TQ. BHALKI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST. BIDAR-585328.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANESH S/O SONAJIRAO,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:100
MFA No. 201874 of 2023
R/O. BHEEM NAGAR, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585328.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
ANNA SALAI SUNDRAM BUILDING,
CHANNAI-600001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DTD. 30.06.2023,)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.08.2022, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT AT BHALKI, IN MVC NO.211/2017 AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY
THE APPELLANTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
1. Heard both sides.
2. By consent of both the parties, matter is taken
up for final disposal though it is listed for admission.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:100
3. This appeal by the claimants is against the
judgment and award 04.08.2022 passed in MVC
No.211/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Bhalki at Bhalki, (for short 'Tribunal'), seeking
enhancement of compensation.
4. The short point that arises in this appeal is
regarding calculation of the compensation amount on
account of death of deceased Mukesh, who was aged 26
years and self employed.
5. The fact that the deceased Mukesh met with an
accidental death and accordingly charge-sheet was laid by
the Police against the driver of offending vehicle is not in
dispute. The Tribunal while calculating the compensation
amount has not considered the future prospects, which
was to be added to the notional income of the deceased
Mukesh. It also had not considered the escalation of 10%
in respect of the funeral expenses, loss of estate and
consortium.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:100
6. The deceased Mukesh died in the year 2015.
The Tribunal has taken Rs.7,000/- per month as income of
the deceased. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the
disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional
income of `8,000/- per month for the year 2015, in the
absence of proof of income. In umpteen number of
decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by
KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before
the Lok Adalat are in general conformity with the minimum
wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore,
the notional income of the deceased is accepted as
`8,000/- per month.
7. As per law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others1 the future prospects has to be
considered at 40% of the income of the deceased,
accordingly 40% of Rs.8,000/- is Rs.3,200/-. Evidently,
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:100
the claimants are mother and brother of the deceased and
the deceased was bachelor, the Tribunal has rightly
deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses of
the deceased. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss
of dependency is calculated as (Rs.8000 + Rs.3200) x 12
x 17 x 50% that equals Rs.11,42,400/-, by adopting
multiplier of '17'. By adding 10% at every 3 years to the
loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses as held in
the case of Pranay Sethi referred supra, the petitioners
are entitled for a sum of Rs.84,700/- as against
Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the
petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.12,27,100/- instead of Rs.7,44,000/- as ordered by the
Tribunal. Consequently, there will be enhancement of
Rs.4,83,100/-.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:100
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The appellants are entitled for a sum
of Rs.4,83,100/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization in
addition to what has been awarded by the
Tribunal.
(iii) The rest of the terms and conditions
regarding deposit etc., ordered by the Tribunal
remain unaltered.
(iv) Respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within four weeks from
the date of the receipt of the copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
