- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8521 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JANAMMA, W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE. 2. SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA @ PARAMESHWARA, S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, COOLIE. BOTH R/O AT NEAR BSNL OFFICE, MATTI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TQ. AND DIST. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H. GURUSWAMY, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KERYAGALAHALLI VILLAGE TQ., AND DIST., DAVANGERE - 577 001. 2. G.C. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O GOWDRA BASAPPA CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.3371/3B, 3RD CROSS, NEAR SHANKAR LEELA KALYANA MANTHAPPA, M.C.C B BLOCK, DAVANGERE - 577 001. 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 34/3, MMK COMPLEX, P.B. 237, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 4. SRI E.P.MADHUKUMAR, S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O AT NEAR BSNL OFFICE, MATTI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TQ. AND DIST. 5. SMT.P.NAGAVENI, W/O M. AJJAYYA, D/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O KANIVEBILACHI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TQ., AND DIST., DAVANGERE. 6. SMT. AMUTHA, W/O UMESH, D/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O BHYRANAHALLI VILLAGE, HIREMALALI POST, CHANNAGIRI TQ., AND DIST., DAVANGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.12.2025, NOTICE TO R4 TO R6 DISPENSED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.240/2020 BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, DAVANAGERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 04.12.2021 passed in MVC.No.240/2020 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V, Davanagere (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 02.12.2019 at about 8.45 p.m., one Praveen Kumar was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17/EQ-1480. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-17/D-6615 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the said Praveen Kumar fell down and sustained grievous injures and succumbed to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 same. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3.1 On service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their respective statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 3.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,76,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. The tribunal also directed that no compensation be awarded against claimant Nos.3 to 5 as they are not dependents on the deceased. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has not considered the proper income for awarding compensation, so also future prospects has not been awarded in accordance with the Hon'ble Apex Court at 40%; whereas the global compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded towards future prospects, which is an illegality and the same requires to be enhanced. On these grounds, she seeks enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of the tribunal and contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for appellants- claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and death having occurred due to the road - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P12. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the offending bus, which is not questioned. 7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is stated that the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘18’, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The tribunal taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/- per month. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.14,000/- for the accident of the year 2019. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.14,000/-. 40% future prospects requires to be granted as against Rs.50,000/- global compensation awarded by the tribunal towards future prospects. As the deceased was unmarried, the tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 deceased, which also does not call for interference and the same is retained. Therefore, claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs.21,16,800/- (Rs.14,000/- + 40% = Rs.19,600/- - 50% = Rs.9,800 /- x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.12,96,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 8. The tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium as there are two dependents, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. 9. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. However, 10% escalation would have to be added to this amount, but the same is not granted since the tribunal awarded love and affection and mental agony, guidance at Rs.20,000/-, which is adjusted towards this amount. 10. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards future prospects, which is adjusted to the future prospects - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 calculated hereinabove under the head loss of dependency. 11. In view of the above, the claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.22,46,800/- as against Rs.14,76,000/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 21,16,800-00 Loss of consortium 80,000-00 Loss of estate and funeral expenses 30,000-00 Love and affection and mental agony, guidance 20,000-00 TOTAL 22,46,800-00 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 04.12.2021 passed in MVC.No.240/2020 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V, Davanagere, is modified; iii) The claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.22,46,800/- as against Rs.14,76,000/- awarded by the tribunal; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6691 MFA No. 8521 of 2022 iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.14,76,000/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by respondent No.3-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants upon proper verification; vii) All other terms with regard to apportionment, deposit and release are retained; viii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK