- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHAMANI W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR J.M., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. J.C. DARSHAN S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAAR J.M., AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, 3. J.C. ROHAN W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR J.M. AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, SINCE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 AND ARE THE MINOR REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO. 1 I.E., SMT. SHANTHAMANI, R/O JAVAGAL VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103, HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H T.,ADVOCATE)(PH) AND: 1. M SHANKAR Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O H.N. PURA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BEHIND KMF, HASSAN-573 201. 2. HAFIJAULLA S/O LATE MOHAMMED GOUSEPEER, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O UDAYAPURA VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. 3. THE MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO. 69, J.P. AND DEVI, JMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, 2ND STAGE, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PH) R1 AND R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 02.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.897/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is by the claimants/appellants herein aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.01.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.897/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Arsikere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case leading upto filing of the present appeal are; (a) That on 23.03.2016 at about 2:00 p.m., when the deceased J.M. Chandrashekar was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-N-8720, near the bridge on Arsikere- Beluvalli road on N.H.234, lorry bearing registration No.KA-19- A-8951, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against his motorcycle resulting in he sustaining fatal injuries and succumbing to the same at the spot. (b). Thereupon, the claimants being the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 M.V. Act, seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- contending inter-alia that the deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of accident being hale and healthy and was earning huge income through agriculture and other businesses and he was contributing the same to the family. That the untimely death of the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver has caused financial and emotional distress to the claimants. (c). Upon service of notice, respondent No.1 being the driver and respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending lorry appeared and filed statement of objections denying the petition averments, mode and manner of the alleged accident and also denied the claim of the claimants for any compensation. Respondent No.3-Insurance company filed statement of objections contending that the driver of the lorry did not have valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and since the owner and insurer of the motorcycle was not made party to the proceedings, the petition was not maintainable. Hence sought for dismissal of the same. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 3. Based on the pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues: Issues: ''1) ಾಂಕ 2.3.2016 ರಂದು ಮ ಾಹ 2.00 ಗಂೆ ಸಮಯದ ಾವಗ-ಾಾವರ ರೆಯ ೆಳವ-ಅರ ೆ!ೆ ಮದ ಇರುವ ೇತು%ೆ ಹ&ರ 'ೕಾರು ೈ) ನಂ. ೆಎ-13:ಎ,-8720 ರ ೈಕನು ಮೃತ ಚಂದ/0ೇಖ2 ರೆಯ ಎಡ4ಾಗದ ಚ5ಾ6ಸು&ರು%ಾ7ೆ8 ಅ ೇ ಸಮಯದ ಎದುರುಗ9ೆ6ಂದ ಅಂದ!ೆ ಾವಗ ಕ9ೆ6ಂದ ೋಂದ; ಸಂ<ೆಕಎ-13:ಎ-8951 gÀ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ಅದರ =ಾಲಕನು ಅ&ೕ%ೇಗ ಮತು ಆಾಗರೂಕ@ೆ6ಂದ =ಾಲೆ AಾB BCDಪBFದ ಪGಾಮ ಮೃತ ೆ.ಎಂ. ಚಂದ/0ೇಖ2 &ೕವ/ ಸHರೂಪದ 7ಾಯಗ7ೊಳ7ಾI ಮೃಪJKರು@ಾ!ೆಂದು ಅLM ಾರರು ರುಜು%ಾತುಪBಸುವ!ೇ? 2) 1 ಮತು 2ೇ ಎದುರು ಾರರು ತಮO ತಕ!ಾGನ &Fರುವ ಾರಣಗ7ಾI ಪGQಾರ Rಾವ& Aಾಡಲು ಾದರಲ%ೆಂದು ಾSೕತುಪBಸುವ!ೇ? 3) ಅLM ಾರರು ಅಪTತ ಪGQಾರ ಪ9ೆಯಲು ಅಹM!ೇ? QಾIದU VಾGಂದ ಎಷುK ಪGQಾರ ೆD ಅಹMರು? 4) ಏನು ಅ%ಾYM ಅಥ%ಾ ಆ ೇಶ? Additional Issues: 1) 3ೇ ಎದುರು ಾರರು ತಮO ತಕ!ಾGನ &Fರುವ ಾರಣಗ7ಾI ಪGQಾರ Rಾವ& Aಾಡಲು ಾದ!ಾIರುವ\ಲ%ೆಂದು ಾSೕತುಪBಸುವ!ೇ?'' 4. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and exhibited 14 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On the other hand, respondents have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 5. Upon appreciation of the evidence, Tribunal found that the accident in question has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. As such, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.12,05,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, however the Tribunal has erroneously assessed his monthly income only at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is grossly inadequate. That the Tribunal has not granted compensation under the Conventional heads. As such, seeks for allowing of the appeal granting enhanced compensation. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance company submits that the assessment of the income and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper warranting no interference. Hence seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 9. The accident in question resulting in the death of the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver is not in dispute. Though the claimants have contended that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from agricultural work, no documentary evidence has been produced in this regard. The Tribunal has taken monthly income at Rs.8,000/- p.m. In the absence of any documents evidencing the income of the deceased reference is made to the chart prepared by the KSLSA. Since accident is of the year 2016 the notional income of the deceased is determined as Rs.9,500/- p.m. Whereas the Tribunal has taken the same at Rs.8,000/- p.m., as such the same is incorrect and improper. 10. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 since the deceased was aged about 44 years, 25% of income is to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the total income of the deceased per annum would be (Rs.9,500 X 25%= Rs.2,375+Rs.9,500= Rs.11,875 X 12=) Rs.1,42,500/-. 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 11. The deceased has left behind 3 dependents, as such 1/3rd of his income is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Age of the deceased being 44 years, multiplier 14 is applied. Therefore, loss of dependency would be (Rs.1,42,500X 3/4X14=) Rs.14,96,250 /-. 12. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram 2 and as clarified by the judgment in the case of United Insurance Company Ltd., Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others3, claimant No.1 being the wife is entitled for loss of spousal consortium of Rs.40,000/-, claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the children are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 13. In addition they are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 14. The claim having been made in the year 2016 and an award having been made in the year 2018, amount awarded under the conventional heads is required to be revised at 10% for every block of three years. Since three blocks of three years 2 2018 (18) SCC 130 3 AIR 2020 SC 3076 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 have been completed, the compensation towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral and transportation expenses shall be escalated by 30%. Thus, appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation, in a sum of Rs.16,91,250/-, as under: Sl.No. Head Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.14,96,250 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs.1,56,000 3 Towards loss of estate Rs.19,500 4 Towards funeral expenses Rs.19,500 Total Rs.16,91,250/- Less awarded by the Tribunal Rs.12,05,000/- Enhanced by Rs.4,86,250/- 15. As regards the rate of interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., the same is reduced to 6% p.a. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,86,250/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization payable by respondent No.3/Insurer. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13991-DB MFA No. 212 of 2019 iii) Respondent No.3/Insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. iv) On such deposit, Tribunal shall release Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the claimants digitally on furnishing the required documents and invest the balance amount in fixed deposit in the name of claimant No.1 in any nationalized/scheduled Bank of her choice for a period of three years. SD/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32