IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101996 OF 2016 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1. NARAYANAPPA @ NARAYAN S/O. IRAPPA NAIK, AGE: 56 YEARS, R/O. KANASE, SAGAR.

2. SMT. SAROJA TIMMAPPA NAIK, AGE: 29 YEARS, R/O: SATTALLI, SIDDAPUR.

3. SMT. SUJATHA KUMAR NAIK, GIRIJA A.

BYAHATTI AGE: 27 YEARS, R/O: KANSE, SAGAR.

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI L O o F c a K t A io R n N : A H T IG AK H A COURT DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

4. MANJUNATH NARAYANAPPA NAIK, AGE: 25 YEARS, R/O: KANSE, TQ: SAGAR.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. NAGARAJ M.B.

S/O. BHIRAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER, R/O: KANSE, POST: SYDUR, TQ: SAGAR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA.

2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., R/P BY ITS BRANCH MANAGAR, BRANCH OFF, 1^ST FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX, B.H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10/04/2015 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MACT SIRSI IN MVC 90/2013 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE PETITION AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

Heard Sri.Narayan V.Yaji, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.M.K.Soudagar learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) through orders in M.V.C. No.90/2013 dated 10.04.2015, the present appeal is filed by the claimants therein.

3. The first appellant being the husband, appellants No.2 and 3 being the daughters and appellant No.4 being the son of the deceased Sannamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’ for brevity), who died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2012, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of Rs.3,76,000/- as compensation and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased as an agriculturist and by doing coolie work was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day awarded very meager sum as compensation and therefore, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel submits that the accident occurred in the year 2012 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month and at least said figure should have been adopted by the Tribunal.

5. Opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that no evidence whatsoever is produced to show that the deceased was an agriculturist. Learned counsel states that the deceased was aged around 45 years as on the date of accident. As age advances, women will depend more on their husband and thus their earnings cannot be taken even on notional basis. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal rightly took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day and thus the award of the Tribunal needs no interference. Learned counsel further submits that in fact the husband is entitled for compensation only for loss of consortium and nothing more.

6. As per the version of the appellants, the deceased as an agriculturist and by doing coolie work was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It is also their version that the deceased being a heal