- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6010 OF 2023(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O LATE PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 2. LIKHITA P. D/O LATE PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. 3. KANCHANA D/O LATE PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR REPTD. BY HER MOTHER I.E, RENUKAMMA W/O LATE PUTTARAJU. 4. SMT. BORAMMA W/O LATE CHILINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O DODDAHEDIGEHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 5. KUSUMA P. D/O LATE PUTTARAJU Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.5 IS MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER -YASHODAMMA W/O LATE PUUTARAJU R/O THIPPENAHALLI, DODDABIDARAKALLU, BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH - 560 073. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUNIL K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. P. HEMADRI S/O LATE PALIANI MODALIYAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SOUMYA ENTERPRISES, (PADMAVATHI STORES) MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMGALORE - 577 101 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., J.C.ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 959/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, GUBBI, 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 Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT-17 at Gubbi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No. 959/2020 dated 12.01.2023 being dissatisfied with the meagre compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimants-appellants that on 29.06.2020 at 11.45 p.m., deceased Puttaraju was proceeding in a 407 Tempo driving the vehicle, during - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 which time, Tanker Lorry bearing registration No.KA-18- AA-4444 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased, due to which, he died on the spot. The appellants-claimants who are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation for the unfortunate death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. 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 Rs.22,08,600/- along with interest at 9% per annum and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation within three months. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation, the claimants-appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, not commensurate to the materials placed on record. The Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the correct income of the driver despite production of Driving Licence to show that he was driving the transport vehicle as a driver. The future prospects is taken at 15% instead of 25%. The Tribunal on other heads also has awarded less compensation which requires enhancement. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal, consequently, enhance the compensation. 7. Per contra, Sri Anup Seetharama Rao for Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He sustains the judgment and award on the ground that it is just and reasonable and seeks dismissal of the appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company. 9. The occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death having occurred due to the road traffic accident are all proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P20. The claimants being the legal representatives/dependants of the deceased is also established. The negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle. 10. Now coming to the question of age, avocation, income, appropriate multiplier and awarding future prospects. It is seen that the age of the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident was 43 years, the appropriate multiplier is correctly taken at '14', which does not call for interference. The claimants have stated that the deceased was working as a driver, earning salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. However, no documents are - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 produced to establish the income, nevertheless, there is no dispute with regard to the deceased as a driver on the date of occurrence of accident. He has produced Ex.P.11 to substantiate the same. The Tribunal has taken notional income at Rs.14,000/- for the year 2003, which is on the lower side. The deceased cannot be equated with a coolie or unskilled work to award notional income since he is a driver Ex.P.11 is produced to show his driving licence. This Court will have to award something reasonable, if not Rs.35,000/- as pleaded. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income to be at Rs.20,000/- per month instead of 14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In view of the fact that the deceased was aged 43 years 25% will have to be added towards future prospects and there being 5 dependants 1/4th will have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Under these circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.31,50,000/- (Rs.20,000 + 25% = Rs.25,000/- / 4 - Rs.6,250/- = Rs.18,750/- x 12 x 14) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 towards loss of dependency as against Rs.20,28,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Towards loss of consortium, as there are five dependents, each would be entitled for 40,000/- per person as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Hence, the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 5) as against Rs.80,000/- under the head loss of Love and Affection + Rs.50,000/- under the head Loss of Consortium awarded by the Tribunal. 13. So also towards 'loss of estate' and towards 'funeral expenses' a sum of ₹25,000/- each is awarded by the Tribunal and the same is retained. 14. In view of the above discussions, the appellants would be entitled for a total compensation of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 Rs.34,00,000/- as against Rs.22,08,600/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 31,50,000-00 Loss of estate and funeral expenses 50,000-00 Loss of consortium 2,00,000-00 TOTAL 34,00,000-00 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT-17 at Gubbi in MVC.No.959/2020 is modified; iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.34,00,000/- as against Rs.22,08,600/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum; iv) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4682 MFA No. 6010 of 2023 v) The balance compensation amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi) All other terms and conditions of apportionment, deposit and release as ordered by the Tribunal is retained; Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8