- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1749 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. NEELAMMA W/O. CHIKKAMADAIAH @ MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2. JAYASWAMY S/O CHIKKAMADAIAH @ MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.206, 1ST MAIN ROAD, METGALLI, MYSURU-570 016 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRIKANTA S/O. MAYAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT OKKALIGARA STREET, DEVARASANAHALLI, NANJANGUD TALUK-571 301. 2. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, NO.302, 3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 PLOT NO.48., HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O/D 21.07.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 613/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, 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 MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by the Judge, Prl. Court of Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mysuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No. 613/2017 dated 6th June 2019 on the ground of inadequate - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 compensation awarded by the Tribunal and consequently, seeking enhancement. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 25/1/2017, deceased Chikkamadaiah @ Madaiah was an occupant in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA- 09-7962, when the same reached near the Deaf and Dumb School, the driver of a canter vehicle bearing registration No. KL-07-BM-2147 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorickshaw. Due to the impact of the accident, the inmate Chikkamadaiah fell down, sustained severe head injuries and succumbed to injuries in the hospital on 8/2/2017. The appellants-claimants being the dependants of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 4. Respondents, on appearance, filed the statement of objections denying the claim of the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹3,43,078/- along with interest at 6% per annum and directed that the compensation to be paid by respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The appellants being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation have, filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement. 6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has committed an error in taking the age of the deceased at 73 years, whereas the deceased was aged 53 years. The claimants have produced the post-mortem report which depicts the age of the deceased as 53 years, whereas the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the age at 73 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 and adopted the multiplier as '5' which is erroneous and the same requires to be rectified, so also the multiplier. It is also contended that on other heads also, the Tribunal has awarded less compensation and consequently, he seeks for enhancement. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 contends that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned judgment and award, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, which does not call for interference. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contends that the age of the deceased is not 53 years, and it can be taken at 56 years and consequently, if the age is taken as 56 years the relevant multiplier would be '9'. To that extent, the judgment of the Tribunal could be modified and that the compensation awarded on the other sheads are just and reasonable. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.2- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 Insurance Company, the point that arises for my consideration is: “Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? If so, to what extent?" 9. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle, death having occurred due to the road traffic accident are proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P12. Negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle. 10. Now coming to the question of age, avocation, income and multiplier for computation of compensation. The age of the deceased if taken at 56 years, accordingly, the relevant multiplier applicable would be '9'. The monthly income adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, notional income is taken at ₹11,000/- for the year 2017, as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 11. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of ₹8,71,236/- (₹11,000 + 10% = ₹12,100/- / 3 - ₹4,033/- = ₹8,067/- x 12 x 9) towards loss of dependency as against ₹1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Medical expenses of ₹1,13,078/- is awarded by the Tribunal as per the bills produced and the same is retained. 13. Towards loss of consortium, since there are two dependents, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹40,000/- each and the same is retained. However, on consortium, 20% would have to be added towards escalation. Hence, a sum of ₹16,000/- is added to this amount, which would be ₹56,000/- (₹40,000/- + 20%). 14. So also towards 'loss of estate' and towards 'funeral expenses' a sum of ₹15,000/- each, is awarded by the Tribunal and the same is retained. However, 20% - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 escalation on the same to be awarded, which would come to ₹36,000/- (30,000/- + 20%). 15. In view of the above discussions, the appellants would be entitled for a total compensation of ₹11,16,314/- as against ₹3,43,078/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 8,71,236-00 Medical expenses 1,13,078-00 Loss of estate and funeral expenses 36,000-00 Loss of consortium 96,000-00 TOTAL ₹11,16,314-00 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Judge, Prl. Court of Small Causes, Mysuru in MVC.No.613/2017 is modified; iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to a sum of ₹11,16,314/- as against - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2608 MFA No. 1749 of 2021 ₹3,43,078/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum; iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company-respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants upon proper verification; vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact; vii) Registry to send back the entire Court records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3