Karnataka High Court

Shri.Shivaji S/O Dattu Dalavi vs The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C on 27 March, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712
                                                           MFA No. 102469 of 2019




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102469 OF 2019 (MV-I)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SHRI. SHIVAJI S/O. DATTU DALAVI,
                        AGE 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

                   2.   KUMAR. SHREYAS S/O. SHIVAJI DALAVI,
                        AGE 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
                        SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR,
                        R/BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN,
                        NATURAL FATHER APPELLANT NO.1,

                        BOTH ARE R/O MAIN ROAD,
                        SULAGE (H) VILLAGE,
                        TQ: DIST. BELAGAVI-591108.
                                                                  -    APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, M.S.R.T.C.,
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA           DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NEAR S.T. STAND,
PATTIHAL
Location: High
                   KOLHAPUR-416001, STATE OF MAHARASTRA.
Court of                                                   -          RESPONDENT
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench      (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

                        THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF
                   MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
                   BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C
                   NO.2227/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
                   SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AT: BELAGAVI,
                   DATED 05.07.2018 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE
                   INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

                        THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                   JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                             -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712
                                   MFA No. 102469 of 2019




                    ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the

judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 2227/2017

dated 05.07.2018 passed by the XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Belagavi (for short, the 'Tribunal') for enhancement

of the compensation.

The parties are referred to as per their ranks before

the Tribunal.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 09.08.2017

around 1.00 p.m. one Smt. Vandana Shivaji Dalavi

(deceased) along with other three persons were traveling

in Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation (for short,

'MSRTC') bus bearing Reg. No. MH-14-BT-5048. The

driver of the bus was driving it in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against parked tempo bearing Reg.

No. MH-05-AM-1185, as a result of which Smt. Vandana

and two other passengers sustained grievous injuries.

Smt. Vandana succumbed to the injuries on the spot. She

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712

was aged about 50 years, working as a Coolie, earning

Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing her entire earning

to the family. Due to her untimely death family members

are suffering. With these reasons the claimants sought for

compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

3. Respondent-Corporation is the owner of the

offending bus. It has denied all the averments made in

the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim

petition.

4. The Tribunal has framed necessary issues

considering the rival contentions of the parties. The

Tribunal clubbed this case along with two other connected

cases and recorded common evidence. Claimants together

examined in all three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and

marked 12 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.12. After

hearing both parties, Tribunal held that accident had taken

place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its

driver. The Tribunal assessed age of the deceased at 50

years; her income as Rs.9,000/- per month, deducted

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712

50% towards personal expenses, applied multiplier '13'

and awarded compensation of Rs.7,02,000/- towards loss

of dependency and awarded following compensation.

1. Loss of dependency 7,02,000.00

2. Loss of estate 15,000.00

3. Loss of consortium 40,000.00

4. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total 7,72,000.00

5. The learned Advocate for appellants contends that

deceased was married to claimant No.1. However, the

Tribunal deducted 50% of her income towards personal

expenses. The Tribunal has also not added future

prospects as per the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay

Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and

added 25% of the income towards future prospects since

the deceased was aged about 50 years and exact date of

birth is not known to the family members. He further

submits that the amount of compensation awarded under

the head of loss of consortium is also on the lower side.

There are two members in the family, i.e., husband and a

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712

son. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.40,000/-

each towards loss of consortium. Therefore prayed to re-

assess the compensation.

6. Learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation

submits that whatever amount awarded by the Tribunal is

in accordance with law and does not call for interference

by this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The only question arises for consideration in this

appeal is:

Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement

of compensation?

9. The fact of accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal

after assessment of the evidence held that accident had

taken place due to negligence of the driver of the bus

which is not challenged by the respondent.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712

10. The claimants contended that deceased was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month but the Tribunal has not accepted

the same and considered at Rs.9,000/- per month since

there are no materials produced to prove her income. The

said income appears to be on lower side. To assess the

notional income it is necessary to take assistance of chart

of notional income prepared by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority. According to it the notional income of

a victim of an accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/- per

month. The same could be applied to the present case.

11. The Tribunal has deducted 50% of the same towards

personal expenses. Undisputedly deceased was a married

woman. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the

case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC

121, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be

deducted towards personal expenses when the deceased

was a married lady. In addition to that, there are two

dependents and one of them is a minor son. Considering

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712

these facts the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of

the income towards personal expenses.

12. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects.

Admittedly there are no documents to show date of birth

of the deceased. On the basis of postmortem report and

contents of the claim petition, age of the deceased was

considered as 50 years. In the case of Pranay Sethi

(referred supra) between age of 40 to 50 years, to

consider future prospects, 25% of the income has to be

added. If more than 50 years, then said percentage is

10%. If a victim of an accident has few months above 50

years then what is the percentage of income shall be

added towards future prospects is a question to be

answered. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court,

in the case of The Divisional Manager, United India

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sri Shubham Shivaji

Chougla and others rendered in M.F.A. No.

100118/2022 dated 18.03.2024, held that if victim of

an accident is around 50 years and not reached age of 51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712

years, then future prospects of 25% income could be

added to the income of deceased who died in an accident.

Same principle could be applied to this case and 25% of

income of deceased shall be added towards future

prospects. Undisputedly, the multiplier applicable is '13'.

On the basis of said figures, the compensation towards

loss of dependency shall be calculated at Rs.13,32,552/-

(Rs.10,250/- + 25% x 12 x 13 x 1/3).

13. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the

case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi

& Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the claimants

are entitled for compensation under conventional heads.

Thus the appellants are entitled for following

compensation:

1. Loss of dependency 13.32,552.00

2. Loss of consortium 80,000.00

3. Loss of estate 15,000.00

4. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total 14,42,552.00 Rounded of to 14,43,000.00 Award of Tribunal 7,72,000.00 Enhancement 6,71,000.00

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5712

For the aforesaid discussion question raised is answered in

the affirmative and pass the following order.

ORDER

(1) Appeal is allowed in part.

(2) The judgment and award dated

05.07.2018 passed in M.V.C. No. 2227/2017 passed

by the XI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is

modified.

(3) The claimants are entitled for enhanced

compensation of Rs.6,71,000/- in addition to what

has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at

6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

The respondent shall deposit the enhanced amount

of compensation with interest within a period of eight