- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.782 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MR.B.L.MUNIRAJA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA 2. MR.LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BATHALAHALLI VILLAGE VARLAKONDA POST GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST.-562 104 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A. FOR SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI AVALAPPA S/O.LATE CHIKKARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. KU.MANJULA S.C. D/O.LATE CHIKKARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT SOMENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC.NO.122/2018 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GUDIBANDE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the tribunal, challenging the judgment and award dated 25.11.2022 passed in MVC.No.122/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Gudibande (for short ‘the tribunal’). 2. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellants that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and excessive; the tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased, which is on the higher side. Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal has committed an error in taking the deduction towards personal and living - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 expenses of the deceased to be 1/3rd, which is also illegal and arbitrary and the same has to be taken at 50%. Since the deceased was aged 70 years, the claimants were not the dependents on the deceased for their living and income; the claimants, who are adults aged 51 years and 34 years respectively and they had their own avocation. Therefore, the claimants not being the dependants of the deceased would not be entitled to compensation under the head loss of dependency. On these grounds, learned counsel for appellants seeks to allow the appeal and consequently, reduce the compensation. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents- claimants sustains the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal as the same being just and reasonable. It is also contended that there is no illegality and perversity in the judgment and award. Merely because the deceased was aged 70 years as on the date of occurrence of accident, it cannot be said that the claimants are not the dependants on him. Therefore, the claimants - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 being the children of the deceased, the deduction taken at 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses by the tribunal is justified and same does not call for interference, so also, on the other heads. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondents, the points for consideration in this case are: "i) Whether the income of the deceased taken by the tribunal at Rs.12,500/- per month is justified? ii) Whether the deduction taken by the tribunal at 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses is justified?" 5. I am in agreement with learned counsel for respondents-claimants that the tribunal is justified in assessing the income at Rs.12,500/- per month, which is the notional income for the accident having occurred in the year 2018. Therefore, the income taken by the tribunal cannot be disturbed and the same is retained. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 6. I am in agreement with learned counsel for appellants that the respondents-claimants are not the dependants of the deceased. Though they are the children and the legal representatives of the deceased, they cannot be called as dependants as they are not dependent on the income of the deceased. However, they would certainly be entitled to the compensation towards loss of estate, but they would not be entitled to the compensation towards loss of dependency by deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses. 7. This Court, in the case of Sri Kumar and Others vs. The Managing Director and another in MFA.No.5338/2022 [Decided on 11.02.2025] at para 14 has observed as under: "14. In the case on hand where the claimants are not dependent on the deceased are entitled to 50% of compensation. The amount to be granted and calculated is already decided by this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Vinish Jain and others reported in 2018 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 volume 3 SCC 619. At para 6 and 7 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under "Leave granted. Case relates to death of one A.P.Jain. He was years of age. At the time of death, his annual income was assessed at Rs.3,64,500/-. The deduction made for personal at 1/3 is very low keeping in view the fact that the claimants are his two major sons and two grand. The major sons have their own source of income and were not dependent on the deceased and the two grand daughters are primarily dependent on their father and not on their grandfather. We are also of the view that the High Court has erred in granting Rs.50,000/- as loss of love and affection to each of the claimants. The total compensation granted is Rs.14,39,980/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum." 8. Under the circumstance, in the present case on hand, the claimants not being dependants of the deceased would be entitled to loss of estate and the deduction would be 50% of the income and the appropriate multiplier would be '5'. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.12,500/- - 50% = Rs.6,250/- x 12 x - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 5) towards loss of estate as against Rs.4,99,980/- awarded by the tribunal. 9. The tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.25,000/- towards cremation and obsequies, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. 10. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to the reduced compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- as against Rs.6,04,980/- awarded by the tribunal, as mentioned in the table below: Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1 Loss of estate 3,75,000-00 2 Love and affection 75,000-00 3 Transportation charges 5,000-00 4 Cremation and obsequies 25,000-00 TOTAL 4,80,000-00 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 ii) The judgment and award dated 25.11.2022 passed in MVC.No.122/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Gudibande, is modified; iii) The respondents-claimants would be entitled to the reduced compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- as against Rs.6,04,980/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum; iv) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal; v) If the amount is not deposited before the tribunal, the entire amount shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from today; vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the respondents-claimants as per the terms of the tribunal by Electronic transfer to the claimants upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper verification; vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13758 MFA No. 782 of 2023 In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2