Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, JJ.
Smt. Shobha W/o. Basavaraj Patil - Appellant
Versus
Shri Mahaling S/o. Ramesh Hucheli - Respondent
M.F.A. No.105978 of 2024 (MV-D)
Decided on : 09-09-2025
For the Appellant :SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADV.
The court reaffirmed the application of a 13 multiplier based on the deceased's age, highlighting the need for correct assessment of income and ongoing losses when determining compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Appeal filed challenging judgment and award of compensation dated 23.08.2024 for accident resulting in death of the deceased. Tribunal awarded Rs.17,69,775/- for loss of dependency. Appellants contended income and multiplier for compensation calculation were incorrectly assessed. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Compensation - Correct assessment - Court reaffirmed that Tribunal's determination of income based on notional income chart was justified. Court stated the correct multiplier for age group 46-50 is 13 and allowed additional compensation for loss of future prospects. (Paras 10-14)
(C) Interest - Court awarded 6% interest on modified compensation amount from date of claim petition till realization. (Paras 19-20)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, aged about 50 years, suffered grievous injuries due to negligence in a motorcycle accident while walking home. Claimants sought Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation but Tribunal awarded Rs.17,69,775/-.
Findings of Court:
Claimants entitled to total enhanced compensation of Rs.25,40,688/- with 6% interest.
Issues: Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Court clarified the appropriate multiplier based on age group and the entitlement for future prospects and loss of consortium, emphasizing the role of notional income and statutory provisions.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, compensation modified to Rs.25,40,688/- with 6% interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of the accident (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent's objections to claims (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellants' and respondents' arguments on compensation (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's consideration of appeal (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's findings on income and multiplier (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. calculation of modified compensation (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. final conclusion and order (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 23.08.2024 passed in MVC No.963/2022 by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, [for short, ‘Tribunal’]
2. The Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 08.01.2022 at about 07.30 p.m., the deceased Basavaraj was proceeding by walk near Badakundri Yaranal road on the left side of the road, at that time, a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-22/Q-1589 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the deceased resulting in the accident. It is averred that due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to multiple hospitals for treatment, wherein he succumbed to his injuries.
3. It is further averred that at the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years. At the time of death, he was earning around Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.13,000/- per month from other avocations. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have suffered emotional and financial hardship. Hence, they filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).
4. The Respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their statement of objections separately by denying age, income and avocation of the deceased. The Respondent No.2 contended that claimants in collusion with the police and hospital authorities falsely involved the offending vehicle and the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess an effective driving license at the time of accident. Hence, they sought to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties.
The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. The Respondent did not adduce oral evidence but with consent got marked Exs.R1 to R4. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record partly allowed the claim petition and determined the total compensation at Rs.17,69,775/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal seeking for higher compensation.
6. Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.14,750/- per month as the deceased was only 50 years old as on the date of the accident and was earning an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, Rs.8000/- per month from milk vending and Rs.5,000/- per month from vegetable business. It is further submitted that the deceased was a sole earning member of the family and there are six dependants on his income, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the appellants No.2 to 6 and also awarded a meager compensation under the head of medical expenses. It is submitted that the Tribunal has also committed a serious error in awarding 10% compensation under the head of future prospects of the deceased as the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and erred in applying the multiplier, which is required to be enhanced. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Sangli V/s Smt. Bismilah , [MFA No.101337/2021 C/w MFA No
