- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6976 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PRAMILA, W/O LATE RAMESH B.J., AGED 42 YEARS, 2. B.R.MEGHANA, D/O LATE RAMESH B.J., AGED 23 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT: UMMADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TQ. AND DIST. - 571 401. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O SURESH, AGE: NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR, R/AT NO.EWS 161, H N PURA ROAD, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. 2. THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KAMBLI BUILDING, M C ROAD MANDYA - 571 401, REP. BY BRANCH MANGER. 3. THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S KOMIT SERVICES, NO.15, 14TH C CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. JAYAMMA, W/O JAVARE GOWDA, AGED about 66 YEARS, 5. JAVARE GOWDA, S/O LT SIDDALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS BOTH RESP. NO'S. 4 AND 5 ARE R/O BOOKANAKERE VILLAGE, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C. SEESHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI B.M. KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS DISPENSED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.819/2017 BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimants against the judgment and award passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, CJM, Mandya on the ground of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 2. On 28.03.2017 one Ramesh B.J., was driving the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-54-K-2335 along with one Ravikumar as pillion rider, slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and when they reached near K.R.Pete-Mysuru road near Kanivekoppalu, Pandavapura Taluk and at that time Maruthi Swift car bearing No.KA-10-A-0326 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the occurrence of the accident, Ramesh B.J., rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. In view of the road traffic accident death having occurred, the claimants who are the legal heirs and dependants filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents. 3. On consideration of the materials placed before the tribunal including the objections filed by the respondents, tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.11,70,052/- along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation within two months from the date of the order. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 4. Aggrieved by the inadequate compensation, claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement, on the ground that the income assessed by the tribunal is meager and on the lower side and the deduction towards personal and living expenses is taken is erroneous which requires to be enhanced and so also compensation under the head of consortium requires to be enhanced. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is sustainable both on facts and law and there is no error committed warranting enhancement of compensation. He further contends the tribunal is right in taking deduction at 1/3rd rather than 1/4th as there is no contest by the parents of the deceased. Under these circumstances, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal and sustains the order passed by the tribunal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent and the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 "Whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation?" 7. The answer to the above question would be in the 'affirmative' for the reasons as stated herein below. The occurrence of accident involvement of the vehicle death have been occurred due to road traffic accident are proved and established by production of Exs.P.1 to P6. Therefore negligence is rightly attributed against driver of the offending vehicle and same has not been questioned. 8. Coming to the question of age, avocation and income of the deceased for computation of compensation, it is seen that the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of occurrence of accident, the multiplier adopted by the tribunal is '13', which does not call for interference. However, income taken by the tribunal at Rs.8,000/- requires interference, as the notional income chart for the year 2017 prescribes Rs.11,000/- as income. Hence, income is taken at Rs.11,000/- in the present case. Deceased being aged 48 years, 25% would have to be added towards future prospectus, which is rightly awarded by the tribunal and the same is not interfered. On the question of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 deduction towards personal expenses, tribunal has taken 1/3rd deduction where as the learned counsel for the appellants canvases his arguments that 1/4th ought to have been deducted in view of there being four dependants. Learned counsel for respondent contends that since there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 i.e., the parents and there being no averments made that the parents were depending upon the deceased for their maintenance the deduction taken at 1/3rd is sustainable. The point that requires consideration here is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 i.e., parents have not contested the matter were placed ex-parte before the tribunal who are aged almost 62 and 70 years and the fact remains that they did not participate in the proceedings. Considering the age of the parents, this Court deems it appropriate to accept that they would be dependants on the deceased and accordingly, the personal deduction requires to be taken at 1/4th rather than 1/3rd. Under the circumstances, the claimants and respondents 4 to 5 would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.16,08,828/- (Rs.11,000/- + 25% = Rs.13,750/- - 1/4th = Rs10,313/- x 12 x 13) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.10,40,052/- awarded by the tribunal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 9. Towards loss of consortium there have been four dependants each should be entitled to Rs.40,000/- per person. Hence, Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 4) along with 10% escalation on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%). 10. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which do not call for interference. In all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.30,000/- under these heads. However, 10% escalation on the same to be awarded, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%). 11. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,17,828/- as against Rs.11,70,052/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 16,08,828-00 Loss of consortium 1,76,000-00 Loss of estate, transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses 33,000-00 TOTAL 18,17,828-00 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 03.12.2019 passed in MVC.No.819/2017 by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, is modified; iii) The claimants and respondent nos.4 and 5 would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,17,828/- as against Rs.11,70,052/-; iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.11,70,052/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi) With consent of the learned counsel for the appellants, compensation shall be apportioned at 40% each to the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and 10% each to respondent Nos.4 and 5 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8225 MFA No. 6976 of 2021 vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal are undisturbed and retained. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK