- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2802 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SEETHARAMAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O SEETHARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. MUNIRAJU S/O SEETHARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 4. NAVANITHA D/O SEETHARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.6, JONNALAKUNTE, YALAHANKA, BANGALORE- 560 063. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. N.VANDANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, NALLAGUNDAIGAR ALLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 587 302. Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 2. THE MANAGER H.D.F.C. BANK LTD., COMMERCIAL VEHICLE BRANCH, CMH ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 038. 3. NAGESH, S/O SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT BATHALAHALLI VILLAGE, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 587 302. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.C CHETHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 20/11/2019, APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R2, R3-SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED12.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7851/2010 ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDL. SCJ, MACT & XLI ACMM, BANGALORE (SCCH-17), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 12th April 2013, passed by the XIX Addl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. and Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (SCCH-17) (for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 `Tribunal'), in MVC No.7651/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 28.07.2010, at about 4.00 p.m., deceased Prakash was traveling in the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-40-3009. At Sadali gate of National Highway-7, the driver of the said autorickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the garden wall. As a result, the vehicle overturned, causing death of Prakash. 4. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was studying in II year PUC and the claimants are his parents, brother and sister. For these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their separate written statement. Initially they had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 contended that respondent Nos.1 and 3 are the owners of the said autorickshaw and respondent No.2 was the insurer. Respondent No.2 after appearance, contended that there was no privity of contract between them and the respondent No.2 and was not an insurance company and, it was a financial company from which respondent No.1 obtained the loan to purchase the autorickshaw. Unnecessarily, it was made as a party and hence prayed for dismissal of the case against respondent No.2. 6. The respondent No.1 contended that he was the owner of the said vehicle and he sold the same to one Sri C.N.Narasimhamurthy, S/o Narayanappa of Korehalli, Hampasandra Gram Panchayat, Somenahalli Hobli, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapur, on 15.07.2008 and he delivered the possession of the said vehicle in his favour. Therefore, as on the date of the accident, he was not the owner of the said autorickshaw. He had not engaged respondent No.3 as the driver of the said vehicle. Hence, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 he is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 8. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 10 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-10. Respondents have examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked the documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded Rs.5,41,000/- as compensation under following heads and directed respondent Nos.1 and 3 to pay the same: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 4,86,000/- Loss of love and affection 40,000/- Funeral and transportation expenses 10,000/- Loss of estate 5,000/- Total 5,41,000/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 10. During the pendency of this appeal, the appeal against respondent No.2 was dismissed for default and no steps were taken to restore the appeal against respondent No.2. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.3 remained unrepresented. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1. 12. The Tribunal after assessing the materials available on record, held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of auto by its driver causing death of Prakash. The said finding is not challenged by respondent Nos.1 and 3. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the same. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the deceased was studying in II year PUC and was aged about 18 years, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income ought to be taken as Rs.5,500/- per month since the accident occurred during the year 2010. The Tribunal has not added future prospects as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Pranay Sethi1. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under the head `loss of dependency' is on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced. 14. It is the further submission of learned counsel for the appellant that, as per the law laid down in Pranay Sathi's case (supra) and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram,2 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2018) SC 1247 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 the amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance the same. 15. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is sustainable. Undisputedly, the age of the deceased was 18 years as on the date of the accident. He was a student, studying in II year PUC. The Tribunal has taken the notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. Following the chart of notional income prepared by KSLSA, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,500/- per month. The deceased was aged 18 years, therefore, 40% of his income has to be added towards future prospects. 16. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and others,3 the multiplier applicable to the facts of the present case is `18'. Deceased was 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 unmarried, therefore, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. On the basis of the aforesaid factors, the amount of compensation is calculated under the head `loss of dependency'. 17. As per the law laid down in Pranay Sathi's case (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., case (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2 being parents of the deceased, are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads. Claimant Nos.3 and 4 are major brother and sister of the deceased. All the member of the family are not entitled for compensation under the head `loss of consortium'. Normally their attachment may not be too close as that of parents, spouse and children. Hence, claimant Nos.1 and 2 are parents, are entitled for compensation under the head `loss of consortium' and remaining conventional heads. 18. Accordingly, the following compensation is awarded: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency (Rs.5,500/- +40% x 12 x 18/2) 8,31,600/- Loss of love and affection 80,000/- Funeral expenses 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 9,41,600/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off- 5,41,000/- __________ 4,00,600/- 4,01,000/- 19. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization. 20. There is no insurance coverage to the offending vehicle. Therefore, as rightly held by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 12th April 2013, passed in MVC.No.7851/2010, by the XIX Addl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., and XLI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (SCCH-17), stands modified. iii) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,01,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The apportionment, deposit and release etc., are as per the award passed by the Tribunal. vi) Draw award accordingly. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21040 MFA No. 2802 of 2014 Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12