- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: ABDUL SAMAD S/O LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O VIDYADAYINI SCHOOL, IDYA, SURATKAL, MANGALORE TALUK 575014. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD 1ST FLOOR, ENJAYS COMPLEX, OPP NETHRAVATHI BUILDING, BALMATTA, MANGALORE - 575 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. JAGANNATH S S/O VASU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O GANESH NILAYA, NETHRAVATHI ROAD, THUMBE, BANTWAL 574143. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 27.11.2023) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.174/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T AND III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 challenging the judgment and award dated 16.03.2016 passed in MVC.No.174/2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K2 seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading in the present appeal are that on 09.09.2010 when the deceased was crossing the road, a motorcycle being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, causing the accident in question wherein she sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to the hospital. The deceased succumbed to 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 her injuries on 04.10.2010. Claiming compensation for death of the deceased the claimant being son of the deceased filed the claim petition arraying the owner and insurer of the offending motorcycle as respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 16.03.2016 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `4,02,647/- together with interest at 6% per annum and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. Respondent No.2 – insurer was directed to deposit the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. BR Guruprasad, appearing for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. EI. Sanmathi, appearing for respondent No.1 – insurer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of dependency. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 COMPANY LIMITED V/S BIRENDER AND ORS3 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEEMA RANI AND ORS V/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS4, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the loss of dependency ought to have been awarded. Learned counsel further contends that the compensation on other heads has not been awarded which is required to be awarded. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – insurer justifies the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal, have been perused. 8. The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and liability are not under challenge and have attained finality. Hence, the only aspect adjudicated in the present appeal is with regard to the enhancement of compensation awarded. 3 ‘AIR 2020 SC 434’ 4 ‘2025 SCC Online SC 283’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 9. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was aged 62 yeas and was looking after the entire home affairs. The Tribunal relying upon various judgments held that the claimant being a major son of the deceased was not entitled for compensation on the heads of loss of dependency. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED3 while considering a similar question with regard to the compensation payable to the major dependents held as follows: “15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” (emphasis supplied) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEEMA RANI AND ORS4 noticing it’s earlier judgment in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED3 awarded compensation to a married daughter. 12. Having regard to the settled position of law as noticed above, the finding recorded by the Tribunal denying the compensation on the head of loss of dependency is erroneous and liable to be interfered. 13. PW.1 in his testimony has deposed that the deceased was looking after their home and was living with him. He further deposed that he was carrying on business of selling bags, having been employed by another person and would get a sum of money for sale of each bag. Hence, the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED3 and the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the said case is required to be followed in the present case also. 14. The deceased was aged 62 years and was stated to be a home maker. No documents have been produced to prove the income of the deceased. Having regard to the date of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 accident, notional income of the deceased is assessed as `5,500/- p.m,. Since the claimant who is her son having independent income, 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. 15. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier is ‘7’. Hence, loss of dependency is re- assessed as (`5500 – 50% X 12 X 7)= `2,31,000/-. 16. The claimant has contended that he has incurred a sum of `2,77,647/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal noticing the medical bills (Ex.P.10) has awarded the said sum. Hence, the said compensation is required to be upheld. 17. Having regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V/S PRANAY SETHI AND ORS5 and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V/S NANU RAM ALIAS CHUBRU RAM AND ORS6, the loss of consortium is required to be re-assessed as `40,000/- together with 5 ‘(2017)16 SCC 680’ 6 ‘(2018)18 SCC 130” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 increment at 10%. Hence, loss of consortium is re-assessed as `44,000/-. 18. Further the compensation of `16,500/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is required to be awarded. 19. In view of the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium and other heads as ordered above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of affection and funeral expenses is required to be set aside. 20. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation re-assessed is as follows: Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court (`) 1 Loss of dependency 00.00 231000.00 2 Love and affection 100000.00 00.00 3 Funeral and obsequies ceremony and transportation charges 25000.00 16500.00 4 Loss of estate 00.00 16500.00 5 Loss of consortium 00.00 44000.00 6 Medical expenses (awarded by the Tribunal as medical expenses) 277647.00 277647.00 Total 402647.00 585647.00 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 21. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of (`5,85,647/- - `4,02,647/-) = `1,83,000/-. 22. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 16.03.2016 passed in MVC.No.174/2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K, is hereby modified to the extent stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered; iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of `1,83,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal; iv) Respondent No.2 – insurer is directed to deposit the said compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced compensation together with interest accrued thereupon is disbursed to the claimant; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18881 MFA No. 803 of 2017 vi) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; vii) Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52