- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20616-DB MFA No. 7184 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7184 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HEMALATHA, W/O SHIVAKUMAR L. H., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SRI L H SHIVAKUMAR S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.484, 2ND BLOCK, DODDAHATTI STREET, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560058. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARCHANA K V AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.12, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GREEN PARK LAYOUT R M NAGAR MA, BENGALURU-560077. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20616-DB MFA No. 7184 of 2022 2. THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.620, SA-1, 12TH MAIN, 35TH CROSS ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.R.RAVI SHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2, V/O DATED 01/12/2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.4652/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, SCCH-23, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and award dated 24th June 2022 passed in MVC No.4652 of 2019 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XXI Additional Judge of Small Causes Court & ACMM at Bengaluru (SCCH-23), (for short hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), seeking enhancement of compensation. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20616-DB MFA No. 7184 of 2022 Tribunal, by this impugned judgment, has also decided claim petition in MVC No.343 of 2020. 2. Heard Sri Sathisha T, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance company. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering Exhibit P10-salary certificate issued by Sky Associates, as also, the evidence of PW3. He would submit that the salary of the deceased was Rs.30,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income at Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has also not awarded just compensation on other heads and on all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for second respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has awarded the compensation which is just and proper and the same does not call for interference in this appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20616-DB MFA No. 7184 of 2022 5. We have examined the materials placed before us. There is no dispute between the parties as to the accident and death of the deceased in the accident. As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 25 years which is revealed by Exhibit-P7 postmortem report. Commensurate to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has applied proper multiplier 18 as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121. As regards the income of the deceased, PW1 has deposed in her evidence that at the time of accident, the deceased being authorised by Sky Associates, was working as contract- Supervisor for KIA motors and was getting a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. To support her contention, she has produced Exhibit P1-salary certificate issued by Sky Associates. The Proprietor of Sky Associates Smt. N Vanaja is examined as PW3. She has deposed in her evidence that the deceased was working in their concern since July 2018 and was paid a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. During the course of cross- examination, she has clearly admitted that they have not maintained any attendance register and were obtaining the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20616-DB MFA No. 7184 of 2022 signature of the deceased on Voucher at the time of paying salary. It is also admitted that they have maintained Ledger. The same is not produced before the Tribunal. In view of the non-production of relevant documents to substantiate the contents of Exhibit P1-salary certificate, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the same. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the guidelines, for the accidents of the year 2019, the monthly notional income is to be taken at Rs.14,000/-. Further, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, future prospects at 40% is to be added to the income. Accordingly, the income of the deceased would be Rs.19,600/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Then the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.9,800/- Hence, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.21,16,800/- (Rs.9,800/- x 12 x 18). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20616-DB MFA No. 7184 of 2022 The same is awarded as against ₹15,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 6. With regard to loss of consortium, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, the appellants are entitled for filial consortium at Rs.44,000/- each. Accordingly Rs.88,000/- is awarded under said head. Further, Rs.16,500/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses and obsequies. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses which is left undisturbed. Accordingly, the applicants are entitled for compensation as under: Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 21,16,800.00 2. Towards Filial consortium 88,000.00 3. Towards loss of estate 16,500.00 4. Towards funeral expenses & Obsequies 16,500.00 5. Towards Medical expenses 40,000.00 Total 22,77,800.00 7. As regards apportionment of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has held that the appellants 1 and 2 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20616-DB MFA No. 7184 of 2022 being parents, are entitled for apportionment at 50% each. Considering the age of the mother, we are inclined to apportion the compensation in the ratio of 70:30 respectively. 8. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed in part; ii) The Judgment and award dated 24th June 2022, passed in MVC No.4652 of 2019 c/w MVC No.343 of 2020 by the Tribunal is modified holding that the appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.22,77,800/- as against Rs.16,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation; iii) The apportionment of the compensation shall be in the ratio of 70:30 respectively in respect of appellants 1 and 2; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20616-DB MFA No. 7184 of 2022 iv) Second Respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment; v) After deposit of the amount by the respondent- Insurance Company, 50% of the amount commensurate to their apportionment be released to appellants 1 and 2, and the remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed deposit in any nationalised bank of the choice of the appellants for a period of three years under auto renewal scheme; vi) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39