- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.94/2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2019/2018 (MV-D) IN MFA. CROB NO. 94/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.GULABI DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O. LATE RAMA DEVADIGA 2. SRI.VIGHNESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMA DEVADIGA BOTH ARE R/AT AHHARAMANEBETTU, BEACH ROAD, KOTESHWARA VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT … CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI.JAYAKARA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.MAHESH K MAJOR S/O LATE NARASIMHA SHETTIGAR R/AT VIGHNESHWARA, HALASINAKATTE, KOTESHWARA VILLAGE & POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK & Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 UDUPI DISTRICT. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KUNDAPURA BRANCH YADTHRE MANJAYYA SHETTY ROAD KUNDAPURA TOWN, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.C.VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O 11.03.2025) THIS M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1104/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.2019/2018 BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KUNDAPURA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, YADTHARE MANJAYYA SHETTY ROAD, KUNDAPURA TOWN, KUNDAPURA, NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 020 … APPELLANT (BY SRI. H C VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GULABI DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O. LATE RAMA DEVADIGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 2. VIGNESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O. LATE RAMA DEVADIGA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT AHHRAMAMANEBETTU, BEACH ROAD, KOTESHWARA VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201 3. MAHESH. K S/O. LATE NARASIMHA SHERIGAR, R/O VIGNESHWARA HALASINAKATTE KOTESHWARA VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1104/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,77,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND M.F.A. CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Though the matter has come up for admission, with consent of both side, the matter is taken up for final disposal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 2. This appeal and cross objection arise out of judgment and award in MVC No.1104/2016 passed by Additional District Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were claimant Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.3 was respondent No.1 and appellant was respondent No.2 in MVC No.1104/2016 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and son of deceased Rama Devadiga. On 12.08.2016 at 8:50 p.m. when Rama Devadiga was walking near hotel Nagaland within the limits of Ajjarabettumane, Koteshwara village on the roadside, Car bearing registration No.KA-20-Z-1579 hit him. In the accident Rama Devadiga suffered grievous injuries. He was shifted to Dr.N.R.Acharya Memorial Hospital, Koteshwara where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 4. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and insurer of Car bearing registration No.KA-20-Z-1579. Claimants filed MVC No.1104/2016 before - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.40,70,000/- from the respondents on the ground that the accident and death of Rama Devadiga occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of Car. They further contended that he was working as mason and earning Rs.1,200/- per day and they were dependent on his income. They contended that due to his untimely death, they have suffered pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages and respondent Nos.1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the Car are liable to compensate the damages. 5. Respondent No.1 did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of Car, age, occupation, income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation. 6. The Tribunal on hearing the parties by the impugned award held that the accident and death of Rama Devadiga occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA-20-Z-1579. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 50 years, notionally assessed his income at Rs.9,000/- per month, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 deducted 50% from the same for personal expenses of the deceased, applied 13 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.7,02,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.9,77,000/- on different heads as per the table below: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 7,02,000/- 2. Loss of estate 50,000/- 3. Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- 5. Transportation and funeral expenses 25,000/- Total 9,77,000/- The Tribunal held that respondent No.2/insurer is liable to pay the said amount with interest at 6% per annum. Insurer has challenged the said award in MFA No.2019/2018 and claimants have challenged the award in MFA.CROB.No.94/2018 questioning correctness of quantum of compensation. 7. Sri H.C Vrushabhendraiah, learned Counsel for the insurer submits that compensation awarded on all the heads is on the higher side. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 8. Whereas Sri Jayakara Shetty H, learned Counsel for the claimants submits that notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side and deduction of half of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses is contrary to the established principles of law. He further submits that the Tribunal has not properly assessed income of the deceased and has not awarded future prospects on such income. Thus, he seeks enhancement of the compensation. Analysis: 9. It is not disputed that at the time of accident, deceased was aged 50 years and claimant Nos.1 and 2 are his wife and son. Claimant No.2 was aged 21 years at the time of accident. There is nothing to show that he had any gainful employment. Therefore, both of them have to be considered as his dependents. The fact that the deceased was mason is also not under dispute. Considering the prevailing wage rates during the year 2016 for building construction workers and price index, notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Reasonably, that could be assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 10. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1 and having regard to the nature of employment and age of the deceased, 10% has to be supper added to his income byway of future prospects. As there was two dependants, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, the Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased. Applicable multiplier is 13. Therefore, compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is (Rs.9500+950=10,450 x 2/3=)Rs.6,966.66, rounded to Rs.6,967 x 12 x 13=Rs.10,86,852/- 11. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram3 cases each of the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- with escalation at 10% for each three years on the head of consortium. Similarly, claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- + 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2(2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 Rs.15,000/- on the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of death body with escalation at 10% for each three years. Therefore, just compensation payable in the case is as follows: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 10,86,852/- Loss of consortium (Rs.52,000 x 2) 1,04,000/- Loss of estate (Rs.15,000+Rs.4,500) 19,500/- Funeral expenses and Transportation of dead body (Rs.15,000+Rs.4,500) 19,500/- Total 12,29,852/- Awarded by Tribunal 9,77,000/- Enhanced compensation 2,52,852/- Rounded to 2,53,000/- 12. For the aforesaid reasons, Cross objection and appeal deserve to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The appeal and Cross objection are allowed in part. ii. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,53,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iii. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within four weeks - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13209-DB MFA.CROB No.94/2018 C/W MFA No.2019/2018 from the date of receipt of copy of this order on adjusting the amount already deposited if any. iv. On such deposit the Tribunal shall release digitally Rs.1 lakh to claimant No.2. Out of the rest of the amount the Tribunal shall digitally release 80% to claimant No.1 and 20% shall be invested in her name for a period of three years in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank of her choice. v. Amount in deposit and TCRS shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39