- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 304 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MANJULA, W/O LATE B.N. MAHESH AGE 33 YEARS. 2. AMTH B.M S/O LATE B.N MAHESH AGE 11 YEARS. 3. SHWETHA B.M D/O LATE B.M MAHESH AGE 7 YEARS. 4. LAKKAMMA W/O LATE B.N. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGE 69 YEARS. APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS R/B N/G MOTHER APPELLANT NO. 01. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BORASANDRA VILLAGE - 572 137, GULIGENAHLLI POST, KASABA HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH M.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PATEL D. KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 AND: 1. SHYLENDRA H.M, AGE MAJOR S/O MUDDANAN H. LINGAPPA R/O HONNAGONDANAHALLY VILLAGE - 572 137, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 2. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 2315/B-12068/B, I FLOOR, ABHARAMA ARCADE, M.G. ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101, BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.883/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, 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 RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants/claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 19.12.2019 passed in MVC No.883/2018, by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Sira, have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: That the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, for the accidental death of one Mahesha B.N. alias Mahesha S/o. Late Narasimhamurthy, in a road traffic accident that took - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 place on 09.05.2018 at about 04.00 p.m., near Borasandra lake, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that, the deceased who was proceeding towards his landed property on the aforesaid date of accident, by walk, at that time, a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA.64-T239/240 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the pedestrian Mahesha. Because of the accident, Mahesha sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, his post mortem was conducted at Government Hospital, Sira. It is stated that, the deceased was an electrician prior to the accident and he was an agriculturalist by profession also. It is alleged that, he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Because of the alleged incident, petitioner No.1 being the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being the children and petitioner No.4 being the mother of the deceased have suffered a lot. He was the only earning person in the family. Because of untimely death of the deceased Mahesha, there is loss of dependency. Hence, it is prayed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 to award the compensation fastening liability on both the respondents. 5. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and hence, placed ex-parte. 6. Respondent No.2, being the insurer appeared before the tribunal and filed the detailed objections denying the entire assertions made in the petition. It is contended that, the deceased was travelling in the said tractor and trailer as an unauthorised passenger. He lost his control and fell down and sustained injuries. There is delay in filing the complaint. Among other grounds, it is prayed by respondent No.2, to dismiss the petition. 7. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, learned tribunal framed the relevant 5 issues. 8. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, petitioner No.1 has entered the witness box as PW1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and closed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 petitioner's evidence. Respondent No.2 has not lead any evidence. 9. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides and on evaluation of the evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 3 in the 'affirmative', issue No.2 in the 'negative' and issue No.4 'partly in the affirmative' and ultimately awarded a compensation of Rs.17,71,000/- together with interest rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation holding that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor and trailer and insurance policy was in force as the date of accident and held that, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount under law of indemnity. 10. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation amount so awarded, now the petitioners/claimants are before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 11. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submit that, the income so arrived at by the Tribunal is incorrect. According, to the counsel for the claimants, as the accident has occurred in the year 2018, as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, the correct income that is to be taken is at Rs.12,500/- per month, but the tribunal has taken it at Rs,9,000/- per month. He further submits that, there is no award of compensation towards the loss of consortium to all the claimants, that has to be awarded. 12. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, whatever the compensation awarded by the tribunal is correct and cannot be interfered with and prays to dismiss the petition. 13. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the sides, the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the claimants have made out any grounds to enhance the compensation as prayed for. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 14. My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following reasons: So far as the accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal has given a finding on Issue No.1, that, when the deceased was moving by walk, on 09.05.2018 at about 4.00 P.M., near Borasandra lake, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by its driver, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, the said accident has taken place. This finding of the tribunal is not challenged by respondent No.2. Therefore, whatever findings given with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor and trailer, has attained finality. Thus, the claimants are able to prove that, because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing number KA-64.T.239/240, the said accident has taken place. 15. Though, it is alleged by the claimants that, the deceased Mahesha was an electrician and agriculturalist and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but except the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 self-serving statement of petitioner No.1, there is no evidence placed on record. In the absence of such evidence, the tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. The accident has taken place in the year 2018. In view of the guidelines issued the Karnataka Legal Services Authorities regarding the calculation of the notional income, it must be at Rs.12,500/- p.m. Therefore, the tribunal has committed error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased. 16. These claimants are the dependents on the deceased and they have lost their earning member in their family. There shall be inclusion of loss of future prospects at 40% as he was a private worker. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be (Rs.12,500/- +40%) Rs.17,500/-, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. -Vs- Pranay Sethi and Others. It is to be multiplied by 12. The claimants had 4 defendants, therefore, 1/4th of his total income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The deceased - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 was aged 37 at the time of the accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier that is applicable is 15. Thus, the loss of dependency is calculated as (Rs.17,500/- x 12 x 1/4 x 15) Rs.23,62,500/-. 17. The learned tribunal has awarded loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- only to petitioner No.1. But all the claimants are entitled for a loss of consortium, as they have lost their earning member in the family. As the petitioner No.1 has lost her husband at the young age of 30 years, Children Nos.2 and 3 being the minor children, so also claimant No.4 is the mother, aged 66 years. Therefore, the tribunal has committed error in not awarding compensation towards consortium to other respondents. Therefore, all the petitioners are entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each which comes to Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 4). 18. Tribunal has rightly awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- each which would - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 be awarded. In all, Rs.30,000/- with an escalation of 20% which comes to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.30,000 + 20%). 19. Thus the claimants are held entitled for enhancement of *Rs.7,87,800/- (Rs.25,58,800/- - Rs.17,71,000/-) together with of 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation of enhanced compensation amount, as mentioned in the table below: Sl.No. Particulars Amount 01 Loss of dependency Rs.23,62,500/- 02 Towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 and towards love and affection Rs.1,60,000/- 03 Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses + 20% escalation Rs.36,000/- TOTAL Rs.25,58,800/- Both the respondents are held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent to indemnify the compensation under the law of indemnities as policy of claimants' vehicle is admitted and it was valid on the date of accident. Hence, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of *Rs.7,87,800/- within 6 weeks from today. So far as the apportionment of * Corrected vide court order dated: 08.09.2025. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28842 MFA No. 304 of 2021 compensation ordered by the tribunal, it remains unaltered. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK