- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6456 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O LATE MANIKYAM @ MANIKYAM MUDALIAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRESHA S/O LATE MANIKYAM @ MANIKYAM MUDALIAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KESARANAHALLI VILLAGE, SOREGOWDANA KOTE POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S BALAJI AGED MAJOR, S/O SRI A SRINIVAS, R/AT NO.527, MUNNEKOLALU ESHWARA TEMPLE, NEAR BUS STOP, BENGALURU - 560 037. 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSRUANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.08.2024, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2118/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, 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 13th January 2018, passed by the III Additional Judge & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.2118/2017, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 14.11.2015 at about 12.30 p.m., the deceased-Manikyam - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 @ Manikyam Mudaliar met with an accident near Byatappa's House, Desihalli, on Bangarpet Kamasamudram road, due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-HK-3684 by its rider. As a result, Manikyam @ Manikyam Mudaliar sustained grievous injuries and while under going treatment at S.N.R Hospital, Kolar, he succumbed to the injuries. Deceased was aged about 60 years; was a Vegetable vendor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Claimants are sons of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending motorcycle. Respondent No.1 remained exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied all the petition averments and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. 6. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. Respondents have not led any evidence. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/-, which is challenged in the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that there is error in Ex.P.8 regarding the year of birth of the deceased, which is wrongly mentioned as 1933. The claimants have also produced the ration card, wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 92 years. The age of claimant No.1 was 46 years and claimant No.2 was 44 years at the time of accident to their father. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 However, in Ex.P.7, the age of claimant No.1 is mentioned as 36 years, with his date of birth mentioned as 01.01.1996. The age of claimant No.2 is mentioned as 53 years in the ration card, which is also marked at Ex.P.10 and it was issued during the year 2015. In the postmortem report, which is a recent document, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy, assessed the age of the deceased as 60 years. Therefore, the age mentioned in Ex.P.4 i.e., postmortem report, is to be considered. Even in Ex.P.5, age of the deceased is mentioned as 60 years. Both these documents were parts from the charge sheet. Looking at the inconsistency in the said documents, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 60 years as mentioned in Exs.P.4 and P.5. The Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the deceased as 92 years, which is improbable, looking to the age of his children. Therefore, it is vehemently contended that the age of the deceased shall be considered on the basis of Ex.P.4 and P.5. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended that the documents produced by the claimants at Exs.P.8 and P.10 reveal that age of the deceased was 92 years and the year of birth was 1933. The claimants now cannot deny the said fact and there is no explanation in respect of the said documents produced by the them. The Tribunal rightly considered the same and held that the deceased was aged 92 years and hence, the question of loss of dependency does not arise. He further contends that even if age of the claimants is considered, the age of the deceased must be more than 75 years. Under both the circumstances, it is not proved that the deceased was earning any income and the said income was enjoyed by the claimants. These facts were properly considered by the Tribunal and it rejected the contention of the claimants in awarding the compensation, under the head loss of dependency. 10. According to the evidence of PW.1, the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of his death. In the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 cross-examination of PW.1, he denied the suggestion that, as per Ex.P.10, age of the deceased was 92 years at the time of his death. Except said suggestion, there was no much cross-examinations regarding age of the deceased. The parties are rustic villagers. Age mentioned in the documents produced are not consistent. PW.1's evidence regarding age of the deceased was not seriously disputed during trial before Tribunal. 11. It is true that in Ex.P.8, the year of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 1933. Similarly, in Ex.P.10, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 92 years. However, when compared with the Election Identity Card of claimant No.1 produced at Ex.P.7 and the Aadhar Card of claimant No.2 as well as Exs.P.4 and P.5, they are not consistent. It is the admitted fact that the Aadhar Card is not proof of age. It is only a proof of identity. Merely some date is mentioned in Aadhar Card regarding the date of birth or year of birth, that cannot be conclusive proof of the age of the deceased. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 12. The recent document regarding the age of the deceased is Exs.P.4 and P.5, wherein the concerned doctor as well as witnesses who signed on the inquest noted that the age of the deceased was 60 years. Even if we consider the age of the claimants mentioned in the cause-title, the age of the deceased might be around 70 years and the assessment of the age of the deceased by the Tribunal is incorrect. Accordingly, the age of the deceased at the time of his death is taken as 70 years. 13. The Tribunal has not taken into account income of the deceased on the ground that he was aged about 92 years and both the sons were majors having their own source of income. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that dependency does not mean that they were completely depending upon the earnings of the deceased. According to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, legal heirs are entitled to compensation and it 1AIR 2020 SC 434 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 is not indispute that the claimants are children of the deceased. Whatever he would have earned and saved would be succeeded by his legal heirs. Under these circumstances, it is incorrect to hold that the claimants being major sons, cannot be considered as dependent on the earnings of the deceased. 14. According to the case of claimants, the deceased was a Vegetable vendor and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. There is no reliable evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, his notional income shall be assessed. Following the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), income of the deceased is taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2 as well as Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another3, the multiplier applicable between the age 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 AIR 2009 SCC 3104 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 group of 66 to 70 years is '5'. The same can be applied to the facts of the present case. 15. In Ex.P.5 it is stated that the wife of the deceased was no more and he had two sons, who are claimants herein. The claimants also admitted in their cross-examination that they have their own independent source of income and they were not depending upon the earnings of the deceased. Considering the said facts, 50% of income of the deceased is deducted towards personal expenses. On the basis of the said figures, the amount of compensation under the head loss of dependency is calculated. 16. As held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to compensation under 'conventional heads'. Accordingly, the following amount of compensation is awarded: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency (9000 X 50% X 12 X 5) 2,70,000/- 2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection 40,000/- Total: 3,40,000/- LESS Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 30,000/- Enhanced compensation. 3,10,000/- 17. The claimants are entitled to enhancement of Rs.3,10,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the enhanced amount from the date of petition, till its realization. Undisputedly, respondents are liable to pay the same. 18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 13.01.2018 passed by the III Additional Judge & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), in MVC.No.2118/2017 stands modified; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38331 MFA No. 6456 of 2018 iii) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the above amount from the date of petition till its realization. iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of award. v) The amount of compensation awarded is marginal, therefore, entire amount enhanced shall be released in their favour, in the ratio of 50:50. vi) Draw award accordingly. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29