- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10193 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE RESIDENT OF HOLEHATTI HOSAGRAMA SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201. 2. REKHA N.M. D/O. LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF HOLEHATTI HOSAGRAMA SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. ALSO AT: W/O. CHANNAPPA A.G. GANESHA BUILDING, KOPPA CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 126. 3. VIJAYALAKSHMI M.N. D/O. LATE MALLESHAPPA W/O. K.C. NIJALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF HOLEHATTI HOSAGARMA SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. ALSO AT: KOMMANAL VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 201. 4. B.N. SHILPA D/O. LATE MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDENT OF HOLEHATTI HOSAGRAMA SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 ALSO AT: HIREBASUR MAIN ROAD HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI NAGARAJA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VISHWANATHA S/O. NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OWNER CUM DRIVER OF TANKER LORRY RESIDENT OF CHETHANA NILAYA SBM COLONY, NANDINI LAYOUT B. KATIHALLI HASSAN-573 201. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1ST FLOOR, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX BUS STAND ROAD HASSAN BRANCH AT B.M. ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2, AND VIDE ORDER DATED 30-7-2025, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3-6-2017 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.695 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND A.M.A.C.T-2, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 3-6-2017 passed in M.V.C. No.695 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shivamogga, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,61,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 9-12-2014 at 6:00 a.m., when Sri Malleshappa (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was proceeding on his bicycle near Holehatti Hosagrama, at that time, the driver of a tanker lorry, bearing Registration No.KA-19 AE-999, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the wife and daughters of the deceased filed a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 4. Heard Sri Nagaraja M., learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, and Sri Ravish Benni, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, strenuously contended that the deceased was an Agriculturist and earning annual income of Rs.3,00,000/-, but the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on other conventional heads. He further submits that the Tribunal has rejected the claim of appellant Nos.2 to 4 on the ground that they are the married daughters of the deceased. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under each head, which does not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he prayed for dismissal the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? 8. In the case on hand, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has not disputed the accident in question, cause of the death of the deceased, and liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. 9. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimants has taken the contention that the deceased was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month without any proof. No documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority as well as the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- per month. As on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 65 years. Respondent No.2 has not disputed this aspect. The deceased is left behind a wife and three married daughters, as such, 1/3rd of income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, i.e. Rs.1,02,000 (8500 x 12) X 1/3 = Rs.34,000/-. After deduction, the amount to be contributed to his family would be Rs.68,000/- (1,02,000/- minus 34,000/-). As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is '7'. Thus, the compensation payable under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.4,76,000/- (68,000 X 7). 10. In the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 Sethi's case, stated supra, has discussed about granting the compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ and has also issued guidelines for grant of ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The claimants are the wife and daughters of the deceased. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards ‘loss of consortium’ as against Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection' awarded by the Tribunal. Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'funeral expenses' is reduced to Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of estate'. 11. Admittedly, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased and this aspect is not disputed. The Tribunal has rightly held that they are married and residing with their respective husbands, and they were not dependent on the deceased for their livelihood. Hence, claimants Nos.2 to 4 are not entitled for any compensation, except under 'loss of consortium' of Rs.40,000/- each. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 12. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Loss of dependency 4,76,000.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each for wife and three daughters) 1,60,000.00 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 TOTAL 6,66,000.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 4,61,000.00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 2,05,000.00 13. In the result, we pass the following: O R D E R i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The appellants/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,66,000/- as against Rs.4,61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34400-DB MFA No. 10193 of 2018 realisation, excluding interest for delayed period of 470 days in filing the appeal. iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. v. Draw a modified award accordingly. vi. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14