- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., "DORE HOUSE", 2ND FLOOR, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 001. SERVICE OFFICE: NO.230, 5TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009. …APPELLANT (BY Dr. JAGADISH S. HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGAMMA, W/O LATE BASAVARAJAYANAKA, NOW AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. RAVIKUMAR, S/O BASAVARAJANAYAKA, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS W/O LATE BAAVARAJANAYAKA IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND AWARD) NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, (HE IS MENTALLY CHALLENGED PERSON AND IS Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 REP BY HIS MOTHER I.E. PETITIONER NO.1 / RESPONDENT NO.2) R/AT 1ST BLOCK, HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 127. 3. SURESHA B, S/O BANGARANAYAKA, NO.347, HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 127. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.256/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHAMARAJANAGARA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.27,09,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is by the insurer calling in question the judgment and award dated 14.09.2022 in MVC.No.256/2020 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Chamarajanagara, ('Tribunal' for short) only on quantum. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Mohanaraju S/o.Basavarajanayaka and liability to pay the compensation is not in dispute. The only dispute is with respect to quantum of compensation. 3. Heard Dr.Jagadish S.Halashetti, learned counsel appearing for appellant/insurer and Sri.Sanath Kumara K.M, learned counsel appearing for claimants-respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Respondent No.3 though served remained unrepresented. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 5. Dr.Jagadish S.Halashetti, canvase his argument mainly on the point that the Tribunal ought to have deducted the compensation towards 'personal expenses' at 50% instead of 1/3rd, as the deceased was a bachelor, survived by his mother and a brother. As per the cause title brother was shown to be aged 33 years. In these circumstances, the mother could be the only dependant on the deceased. In these circumstances the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses required to be interfered with. 6. In contrast, Sri. Sanath Kumara K.M, taking this Court through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, submits that the claimant No.2, is a specially abled person. To substantiate the said fact, the claimants have produced Ex.P9-Identity card issued to a specially abled person, Ex.P10-Unique Disability ID Card and Ex.P11- Physcially handicapped pension issued by the Tahsildar. In these circumstances, the entire family consisting of mother and specially abled brother are depending on the income of sole bread winner i.e., deceased- Mohanaraju. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 7. The Tribunal after going through the entire record comes to a conclusion that both the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased, especially reasoning the same in paragraph No.18 of the judgment. Accordingly, argued in support of the judgment and sought to dismiss the appeal. 8. In reply Dr.Jagadish S.Halashetti, referring to paragraph No.19 of the judgment, wherein the Tribunal has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1, on the point of deduction towards personal expenses to contend that in case of death of a married person, the deduction is depending on the number of claimants, whereas if the deceased happens to be a bachelor, the deduction would be 50% towards personal and living expenses, as the bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. He further states that there is all possibility of a bachelor getting married in a 1 2009 ACJ 1298 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 short span of time. In that event, the contribution by the deceased towards his parents as well as siblings is likely to be cut drastically. He further refers to the reasoning of the Hon'ble Apex Court to contend that the deduction even in case of a bachelor more than 50% is permissible, if it is proved that the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, that is where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers then his personal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd and contribution to the family would be taken as 2/3rd. 9. On this, Dr.Jagadish S.Halashetti, addressed us that in the case on hand, mother and brother survived the deceased. It cannot be termed as a large family left behind the deceased, though father pre-deceased the deceased. In these circumstances, deduction at 1/3rd is unsustainable in law and just opposed to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 10. Court denies the Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers, the only question that would arise for our consideration is: Whether the Tribunal is justified in considering the personal expenses at 1/3rd instead of 50% and awarded compensation befitting within the expression 'just compensation'? 11. Our answer to the above point for consideration is in affirmative for the following: REASON 12. In the case on hand, deceased is survived by his mother as well as his brother who is specially abled person. The claimants established the fact that the claimant No.2 is a specially abled person by producing all necessary documents i.e., Ex-P9 to Ex-P12. Even a perusal of cause title clearly shows that the second claimant is represented by his mother, since he is mentally challenged person. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 13. The evidence regarding the claimant No.2 is a specially abled person and dependent on the brother is not contraverted by the insurer by leading evidence and documents. It is germane to place that the insurer has not laid any evidence to substantiate its contention that the deduction must not have been less than 50%. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced, in the teeth of evidence to the effect led by the claimants both orally as well as documentary. 14. So far as the contentions of Dr.Jagadish S.Halashetti, that deceased is a bachelor, the deduction towards personal expenses may be considered at 1/3rd, if he has a large family dependent on his income, such as mother and large number of non-earning younger siblings and further that in the case on hand, the family cannot be called as a large family as the claimants are only two in number that is mother and the brother, is concerned what is to be considered in the case on hand is that the father of the pre- deceased and leaving behind the deceased, his wife and a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 specially abled person. In the absence of the father, the entire burden to take care of the dependents was shouldered on the deceased. Since the claimant No.2 is a specially abled person, his dependency on the deceased cannot be ignored. 15. In these circumstances, given the factual background the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the deduction towards personal expenses must be at 1/3rd instead of 50% which could be taken generally. Having gone through the entire materials considered by the Tribunal, we find no infirmities in the reasons as well as conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal for considering the personal deductions at the rate of 1/3rd towards personal expense of the deceased. 16. In these circumstances, the contention of Dr.Jagadish S.Halashetti, required to be rejected and accordingly, the same is rejected answering the issue against the insurer. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50024-DB MFA No. 451 of 2024 17. For the foregoing reasons nothing survives more to consider in this appeal. The appeal sans merit accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is Dismissed, confirming the judgment and award dated 14.09.2022 in MVC.No.256/2020 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Chamarajanagara. ii. The entire amount in deposit before this Court shall be transferred forthwith to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. iii. The balance compensation amount along with accrued interest shall be deposited by the appellant/insurer before the concerned Tribunal within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv. The apportionment and disbursement ordered by the Tribunal is unaltered. v. No order as to costs. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 ct-vn