- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5353 OF 2024(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, B. M. T. C., SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. (BMTC BUS NO: KA -15-F-2652) NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC, BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JYOTHI, W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. MASTER MUNIKRISHNA S., S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, R Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 3. SMT. KASAMMA, W/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 64, KOTHURU, GOLLAHALLI, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 129. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. JYOTHI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K. T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4812/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM,MAYO HALL UNIT, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-19, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.21,69,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.4812/2023 dated 01.04.2024. 2. Heard Sri.Nagaraja.K, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Gurudev Prasad.K.T, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Making his submission on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal is filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal for assessing the amount that is required to be awarded under the head 'loss of dependency' is wrong. Secondly, that the Tribunal did not deal with the aspect of contributory negligence in a proper way. 4. The submission that was made by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the Tribunal did not err - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 in applying appropriate multiplier and equally has dealt with the aspect of contributory negligence in a proper manner and thus the appeal is not maintainable. 5. The matrix of the case as put forth by the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 07.07.2023 at about 10.00 a.m. while the deceased Siddappa (herein after be referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity) was crossing the Whitefield main road infront of Wakefit furniture shop, the driver of the appellant's bus bearing registration No.KA-57/F-2652, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased succumbed to injuries during the course of treatment. 6. Coming to the first ground that is in respect of applying appropriate multiplier, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the multiplier that has to be applied is '13' but not '14'. Learned counsel contended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 that the deceased crossed the age of 45 years and thus as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '13'. The submission that was made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants on the other hand is that the deceased was aged about 45 years by the date of accident and therefore, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier '14'. 7. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, for the persons who were in the age group of 41-45 years by the date of accident, the multiplier to be applied is '14' and for the persons who were aged between 46-50 years by the date of accident, the multiplier to be applied is '13'. In the case on hand, the date of birth of the deceased undisputedly is 01.01.1978. The accident occurred admittedly on 07.07.2023. Therefore, the age of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 deceased is 45 years, 6 months and 6 days by the date of accident. 8. Stating that the multiplier to be applied is '14' but not '13' as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The first decision is in the case between M.H.Uma Maheshwari & Ors vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.2558/2020. The second one is the decision that is rendered in the case between The Branch Manager, Future General India Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru vs. Smt.Varsha.S.L. & Others reported in ILR 2020 KAR 5469. Dealing with the similar factual matrix, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.47 of the judgment held as follows: "47. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed on the selection of the multiplier from paragraph 16 onwards in the said judgment and compared the multiplier scale as envisaged in SUSAMMA THOMAS, TRILOK CHANDRA and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. CHARLIE" with the multiplier specified in II Column of the Table in the II Schedule of the Act and ultimately, held that if the age - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 of the deceased is between 36-40 years, then 15' multiplier would apply, if the age of the deceased is between 41 to 45 years, 14' multiplier would apply; if the age of the deceased is above 65 years, multiplier '5' would apply and if the age of the deceased is between 61 to 65 years, multiplier '7' would apply. The aforesaid would clearly give an indication as to how the age has been reckoned in the said case. It is stated that if the age is between 61 to 65 years, the multiplier '7' would apply and if the age is above 65 years, multiplier 5 would apply. If the same formula is to be applied, when the age is above 65 years, multiplier '5' would apply. If it is above 41 years, multiplier '14' would apply. Therefore, what has been considered is the completed age and not the 'running age' as such When the expression used is 65 years or 40 years would be completion of age of 65 or 40 years and not entering into the 65th or 40th year. No doubt when a person completes 65 years, he/she would enter into the 66th year or it would be the 66th birthday but the age completed is 65 years which is the proper age to be reckoned. Hence, in the instant case, what has to be seen is that 40 years of age had been completed by the deceased and not 41 years as is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. Since the deceased was 40 years 7 months 5 days, it does not mean that he had completed 41 years. It is the international practice to reckon the completed age and not the running age. He might have been running 41 years, but the deceased had completed 40 years. In the circumstances, the multiplier to be applied is '15' as has been done so by the Tribunal. In this regard, we are supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHASHIKALA wherein, it has been held that where the deceased was 45 years 5 months 20 days, the multiplier applied was '14' and not '13', which is for 46 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 to 50 years. The Apex Court approved the application of the multiplier '14' in the said case. Therefore, in the instant case, applicability of '15' multiplier is just and proper. Therefore, the compensation on the head of loss of dependency is ₹21,21,187 x 15=₹3,18,17,805/-instead of ₹1,68,75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal." 9. Both the decisions referred supra makes it clear that the completed years of age has to be taken into consideration and not the running age. The deceased in this case is running his 46th year but the completed years of age is 45 years. Therefore, this Court holds that the Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier '14' for assessing the loss of dependency. Hence, the contention raised disputing the multiplier that is applied by the Tribunal holds no water. 10. Coming to the aspect of contributory negligence, the Tribunal having perceived the fact that the deceased was crossing the road at a place where he ought not to have ventured to cross, attributed 10% of contributory negligence on his part. The appellant failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30691 MFA No. 5353 of 2024 negligence in certain terms on the part of the deceased. However, the fact that is clear is that the appellant was crossing the road where no such provision was made and where there is no zebra line indication for crossing. It is not in dispute that after thorough investigation police laid charge sheet against the driver of the appellant only. Having considered all these aspects, the Tribunal held that the contribution on the part of the deceased for the accident to occur is 10%. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal need not be disturbed. Thus this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merits. 11. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. 12. Amount if any, in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62