Karnataka High Court
Ashok And Anr vs The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc on 25 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3385
MFA No. 200658 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200658 OF 2024 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. ASHOK
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA KHANAPUR,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. LILAVATI
W/O ASHOK KHANAPUR,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
BOTH ARE R/O: SHIRUR,
TQ. & DIST: BAGALKOT,
NOW RESIDING AT JAL NAGAR,
VIJAYPAURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by RAMESH (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT-V, AT: VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.319/2020 DATED
02.12.2022 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3385
MFA No. 200658 of 2024
HC-KAR
GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANTS HEREIN
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of
learned counsel for parties, it is taken-up for final disposal.
2. Appeal is filed against judgment and award dated
02.12.2022 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V,
Kalaburagi (for short 'tribunal') in MVC no.319/2020, this
appeal is filed.
3. Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned counsel for appellants
submitted, appeal was filed by claimants for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted, at about 4:20 p.m. on
18.02.2020, Manjunath S/o Ashok Khanapur was riding
motorcycle bearing no.KA-48/R-9005 towards Bagalkot, when
driver of bus no.KA-42/F-1410 drove it in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against motorcycle. In said accident,
Manjunath died. Alleging loss of dependency, his parents filed
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3385
HC-KAR
claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
NWKRTC - owner of Bus.
4. On service of notice, respondent entered
appearance and filed objections. Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant no.2 and another were examined
as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.10. Driver of bus
was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.4 got marked.
5. On consideration, tribunal held, death of Manjunath
was on account of rash and negligent driving of bus by its
driver and respondent was liable to pay compensation. Not
satisfied with award, claimants were in appeal on sole ground
that tribunal had failed to add future prospects to monthly
income of deceased, granted meager compensation. Even
award under other heads called for enhancement.
6. On other hand, Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned
counsel for NWKRTC opposed appeal. It was submitted,
Tribunal had rightly assessed compensation, leaving no scope
for enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3385
HC-KAR
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and records.
8. From above and since only claimants are in appeal
for enhancement, 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. Perusal of impugned judgment and award reveals,
tribunal determined that deceased was 37 years of age. And
though he was claimed to be working in Chinmaya Gas Agency
and earning `20,000/- per month, they failed to substantiate
same. Therefore, it held his monthly income at `13,750/-. As
per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.1,
tribunal ought to have added future prospects to monthly
income. As deceased was aged 37 years and self employed,
future prospects at '40%' has to be added and as he was
bachelor and claimants are his parents, deduction towards
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3385
HC-KAR
personal expenses will have to be at '50%' and multiplier
applicable would be '15'. Thus, computation of loss of
dependency would be :
[(`13,750 + 40%) - 50%] X 12 X 15 = `17,32,500/-.
11. It is also held in Pranay Sethi (supra) each of
claimants would be entitled for `40,000/- towards loss of filial
consortium. Apart from above, `15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and `15,000/- towards loss of estate has to be
awarded.
12. Since more than six years have lapsed after
rendering of decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), they would be
entitled for addition of 20% i.e., `22,000/- on award under
conventional heads. Thus, total award would be `18,64,500/-.
Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
Consequently, following :
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award
dated 02.12.2022 passed in MVC no.319/2020
by Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and
MACT-V, Vijayapura is modified, claimants are
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3385
HC-KAR
held entitled for total compensation of
`18,64,500/- as against `12,97,500/-
awarded by Tribunal with interest at 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till deposit.
ii) Respondent is directed to deposit enhanced
compensation within six weeks from date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
iii) Direction issued by Tribunal regarding deposit
and release shall be apply to enhanced
compensation proportionately.
Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned counsel is permitted
to file Vakalath within four weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
Ct:Vk
