- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100686 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., NEAR BELLADA SHOW ROOM, NEAR BANNI GIDA, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY …APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUSHPAVATHI K., W/O. LATE RAMESH K, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST-BALLARI-583201. 2. NAGABHUSHANA K., S/O LATE RAMESH K, AGE 28 YEARS, OCC-STUDENT, R/O HOSAPETE, TQ-HOSAPETE, DIST-BALLARI-583201. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 3. GURURAJ K., S/O RAMESH K., AGE 23 YEARS, OCC-STUDENT R/O HOSAPETE, TQ-HOSAPETE DIST-BALLARI-583201. 4. VISHWANATH SETTY, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA SETTY, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC-DRIVER R/O MAIN BAZAR, NEAR VADAKARAYA TEMPLE HOSAPETE-583201. 5. JADIYAPPA MUDENURU, S/O BASAVARAJAPPA MUDENUR, AGE 44 YEARS, OCC-OWNER, R/O BHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSAPETE, DIST-BALLARI 583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (R4 & R5 – SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.07.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.689/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTARTE FIRST CLASS,- CUM-MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VII, HOSAPET, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.45,93,250/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The insurance company is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC – cum Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Hospete (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) under the judgment and award, dated 07.07.2020, passed in M.V.C. No.689/2017. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that, (a) The respondents/claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased viz., Sri. Ramesh K., filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of Sri. Ramesh K., the husband of the claimant No.1, in a road traffic accident that took place on 06.02.2017 involving Maruti Swift Desire - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 car bearing registration No.KA-35/M-6300. It was stated that the deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of the accident, and he was working as a Manager in BDCC Bank, Hosapete getting salary of Rs.45,125/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.1,13,50,000/- along with interest. (b) The appellant-insurance company (respondent No.3 before the Tribunal), on appearance, filed its written statement, disputing the claim of the claimants and contending that the driver of the offending car was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Further, it stated that the claim of the claimants was exorbitant and without any basis. (c) Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial was held. The claimants examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and produced 14 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14. The respondents examined R.W.1 and marked three documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 Rs.45,93,250/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the following heads: 1) Loss of Dependency Rs. 44,63,250/- 2) Funeral expenses and Transportation expenses Rs. 20,000/- 3) Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- each to P.1 to 3. Rs. 30,000/- 4) Consortium to petitioner No.1 Rs. 50,000/- 5) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- each to P.1 to 3. Rs. 30,000/- TOTAL Rs. 45,93,250/- While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.45,125/- per month and after deducting income tax, the Tribunal has assessed the annual income at Rs.5,41,000/-. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, adopted multiplier ‘11’ and deducted 1/4th of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurer is in appeal. 3. Heard Sri. Nagaraj C.Kolloori, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri. Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the impugned judgment and award, and the appeal papers. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding the compensation adopting multiplier ‘11’ as well as deducting 1/4th of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimants are the wife and two children of the deceased, and as the dependants are three in numbers, in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd of the assessed income and not 1/4th as deducted by the Tribunal. With regard to adopting appropriate multiplier, learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased on the basis of the Aadhaar Card (Ex.R2) and contended that as per the Aadhaar Card, the deceased was aged 55 years 7 months and 5 days as on the date of the accident and since the deceased had completed 55 years as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier ‘9’. 1 (2009)6 SCC 121 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding interest on the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum. He submits that, normally, bank interest rates on the fixed deposits will have to be taken note of which is 6% per annum. Therefore, he prays for reducing the rate of interest awarded on the compensation from 9% to 6%. Thus, the learned counsel would pray for modifying the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Sri. Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased had not attained the age of 56 years as on the date of the accident and taking note of the same, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier ‘11’ which is proper and correct. Learned counsel would not dispute that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to be 1/3rd of the assessed income since the dependants are three in numbers. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are, i) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires interference? ii) Whether the interest payable on the compensation awarded by Tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum requires interference? 8. Our answers to the above points are in the affirmative for the following reasons: 9. The occurrence of the accident that took place on 06.02.2017 involving Maruti Swift Desire car bearing registration No.KA-35/M-6300, and the resultant death of Sri. K.Ramesh, is not in dispute in this appeal. 10. The insurer is in appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on two grounds, firstly, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd; and secondly, the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier ‘11’ instead of ‘9’. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 11. The first contention of the appellant-insurance company that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd and not 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased requires to be accepted. There are three dependants on the deceased i.e, the wife and the two children and in terms of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the proper deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, where the dependants are three in numbers, should be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. Therefore, 1/3rd of the assessed income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 12. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased at 55 years and adopted multiplier ‘11’ which according to us is proper and correct. The Post-mortem Report at Ex.P.9 indicates the age of the deceased as 54 years, whereas in the Aadhaar Card, the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 01.07.1961 and if the date of birth as indicated in Aadhaar Card is considered, the age of the deceased as on the date of accident would be 55 years 7 months and 5 days which would mean that the deceased had not attained the age of 56 years. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in adopting multiplier ‘11’. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 13. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, has determined the income of the deceased at Rs.45,125/- per month, and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Out of the monthly income of Rs.45,125/- an amount of Rs.200/- is required to be deducted towards professional tax, and on deducting the same the monthly income works to Rs.44,925/- and annual income works out to Rs.5,39,100/-. Out of the said annual income, a sum of Rs.27,820/- is required to be deducted towards income-tax as applicable for the relevant Assessment Year/period. Thus, the annual ‘loss of dependency’ works out to Rs.5,11,280/-. 14. The Tribunal has not granted compensation towards ‘future prospects’. The deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of the accident, and he was on permanent job as a Manager in BDCC Bank, and was getting fixed/established salary. Therefore, in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, the claimants would be entitled to addition of 15% of the assessed income towards ‘future prospects’. 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 15. Having determined the annual loss of dependency at Rs.5,11,280/-, on adding 15% of the assessed income towards ‘future prospects’, deducting 1/3rd of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased, and applying multiplier ‘11’, the claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.43,11,802/- [Rs.5,11,280 + 15% = Rs.5,87,972 less 1/3rd = Rs.3,91,982/- x 11 = Rs.43,11,802] towards total ‘loss of dependency’. 16. In view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others3, under the conventional heads the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/- (including 10% enhancement) each on the heads of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’, and Rs.44,000/- (including 10% enhancement) each to claimants No.1 to 3 on the head of ‘loss of spousal and parental consortium’. 17. The Tribunal has erred in awarding interest payable on the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum. Having taken the judicial note of the fact that bank interest rates on the fixed 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 deposits is 7% per annum, we reduce the rate of interest payable on the compensation from 9% to 7% per annum. 18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads: 1) Loss of Dependency Rs. 43,11,802/- 2) Loss of spousal and filial consortium (to claimants No.1 to 3) Rs. 1,32,000/- 3) Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- 4) Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body Rs. 16,500/- TOTAL Rs. 44,76,802/- 19. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.44,76,802/- instead of Rs.45,93,250/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of Rs.44,76,802/- shall carry with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 20. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER a) The above appeal is allowed in part. b) The judgment and award, dated 07.07.2020, passed in MVC No.689/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC – cum Member, MACT-VII, Hospet is modified to the extent of holding that the claimants the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.44,76,802/- instead of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB MFA No. 100686 of 2023 Rs.45,93,250/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of Rs.44,76,802/- shall carry with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. c) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other aspects remains unaltered. d) The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) Draw modified award accordingly. Records of the Tribunal together with the amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22