- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5338 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KUMAR S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 2. SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU K H S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KAPANIGOWDANAPALYA KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, DODDASONNAHALLI POST, KALAVI KAVAL, DODDASOMANAHALLI, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 131 3. SMT. HANUMAMMA W/O ANJANAPPA D/O LATE HANUMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT 1606, 4TH CROSS, SANJEEVININAGARA, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 092. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 4. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA W/O CHANNEGOWDA D./O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. CHIKKAMUDIGERE NEAR DODDA MUDUGERE MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562131 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. DEPOT, BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027, (R.C. OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REG. NO. KA-57-F-1825) 2. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 (POLICY NO. 67210031180100003818 VALID FROM 28/03/2019 TO 28/03/2020) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. MANJULA NEMICHANDRA TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 NO. 610/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 being dissatisfied by the inadequate compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accidents Claims tribunal at Bengaluru dated 01.04.2022. Consequently, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 15/12/2019 at about 9.20 am one Smt. Nanjamma walking as a pedestrian extreme left side of the road on NH-75 at that time KSRTC bus bearing registration number KA- 57- F- 1825 came in rash and negligent manner dashed against her due to which she fell down - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 sustained grievous injuries and unfortunately died on the way to Kunigal hospital. Claimants claiming to be the dependents filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent - KSRTC and the Insurance Company. 3. The respondents filed statement of objections denied the claim of the claimant including their dependency on the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition on several grounds. 4. On the basis of materials placed on record both oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,93,000/- along with interest at 9 percent per annum and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation within 2 months. 5. Being dissatisfied with inadequate and meagre compensation awarded, the claimants are before this court seeking enhancement. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the claimants that the impugned judgement and award passed by the tribunal is arbitrary, on the lower side and it has not consider the material placed on record so also has not taken into consideration the loss of dependency and also the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court into consideration while passing the impugned judgement and award. It is also contended that under other heads of love and affection and consortium, the tribunal has awarded less compensation which requires to be enhanced. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks enhancement of compensation and consequently to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company vehemently contends that the judgement and award passed by the tribunal is justified and the same does not call for interference as just and reasonable compensation is awarded. The tribunal has considered all the materials placed on record and has awarded suitable compensation so also considering the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 evidence adduced by PW1 where in, the witnesses admitted that the claimants are adults, married sons and daughters and that they are not dependent on the deceased as on date of occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel further contends that either of the claimants would not be entitled to loss of dependency for the reason that they are adults, major and not dependent on the deceased. 8. Under the circumstances, she sustains the order. She relies upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Manavalagan case. 9. Even this Court awarded loss of estate of only to an extent of 25% of the income and not more than that she relies upon the following judgements in support of her case. 1. ILR 2004 KAR PAGE NO. 3268 "A.Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and others". Paragraphs 16 and 19 of the Judgment. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 2. MFA 7070/2014 D.D. 13/06/2023 (Division Bench) "Baby and 4 others Vs. Sri Nagendra Kumar and another" Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment. Relied upon Manavalagan case. 3. MFA 2204/2021 D.D. 20/02/2024 "Palanethraiah & 3 others Vs. mr. Nagesha G.N. & another: Paragraphs 10, 11 & 13 of the judgment. Considered the Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Vs. Birender and also Manavalagan case of Hon'ble High of Karnataka (DB) 10. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the following judgements in support of his case to contend that the claimants would be entitled to loss of estate and loss of dependency. 1. AIR 2020 SC page no. 434 "National Insurance Co. Vs. Birender and others" - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 Said Judgment is not applicable to the present case, as in that judgment, specific evidence was placed on record about dependency of major sons of Deceased, culled out in paragraphs 15 and 20 of the judgment. 2. M.F.A. 118/2018 D.D. 26/03/2021 (Division Bench) "Smt. Lathamma @ Latha & 3 others Vs. Sri Mohammed Saleem & another" Manavalagan case has not been either referred or considered, except Birender Case of Hon'ble Apex Court. 3. MFA 102868/2014 d.d.04/08/2022 (Single Bench) "Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gangappa & 6 others" 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Respondent - Insurance Company. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and the death having occurred due to the road traffic accident are proved and established by production of Ex.P1 to Ex.12. Negligence is rightly attributed against - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 the driver of the KSRTC bus. The point that arises for consideration before this court is: i) "Whether the claimants are entitled to loss of dependency" ii) "Whether the claimants are entitled to loss of estate and if so, what is the amount." 12. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and multiplier and the compensation to be awarded, it is seen that the deceased was aged 70 years as on date of occurrence of accident. The accident has occurred in the year 2019. Notional income would have to be taken and award compensation neither on the ground of dependency or on the loss of estate, Rs.14,000/- requires to be taken as income. The appropriate multiplier that would be applicable at the age of 70 would be 5. 13. Now coming to the question of whether the claimants would be entitled to dependency or estate this aspect has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 also by the Division Bench of this Court. It is no more res-integra that, when the claimants/adults earning themselves and not dependents on the deceased they cannot be termed and called as dependents they would be entitled to loss of estate rather than loss of dependency. In the present case on hand admittedly on the basis of evidence adduced by PW1. In the cross examination it is clearly admitted that the claimants are major, married sons and daughters and they were not dependent on the earnings of deceased Nanjamma. Therefore this court deems it appropriate that the claimants cannot be termed as dependents and they would be entitled only to loss of estate. 14. In the case on hand where the claimants are not dependent on the deceased are entitled to 50% of compensation. The amount to be granted and calculated is already decided by this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Vinish Jain and others reported in 2018 volume 3 SCC 619. At para 6 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 and 7 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under "Leave granted. Case relates to death of one A.P.Jain. He was years of age. At the time of death, his annual income was assessed at Rs.3,64,500/-. The deduction made for personal at 1/3 is very low keeping in view the fact that the claimants are his two major sons and two grand. The major sons have their own source of income and were not dependent on the deceased and the two grand daughters are primarily dependent on their father and not on their grandfather. We are also of the view that the High Court has erred in granting Rs.50,000/- as loss of love and affection to each of the claimants. The total compensation granted is Rs.14,39,980/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum." 15. Therefore in the present case the claimants would be entitled to 50% of the income for awarding loss of estate. Therefore the loss of a estate in the present case would be Rs.14,000/- X 50% would be Rs.7,000/- X 12 X 5 would be Rs.4,20,000/- as against Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 16. In addition to this amount the claimants would be entitled to loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and transportation of dead body in accordance - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 to the judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. There being 4 claimants should be entitled to Rs.40,000/- per person along with Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body along with this the claimants would be entitled to 10% escalation on the amount herein above awarded under love and affection and towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body, Rs.16,000/- + Rs.3,000/- is added to this amount. 17. The claimants would not be entitled to loss of estate of Rs.15,000/-. 18. Therefore in view of the above discussions the appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,29,000/- as against Rs.1,93,000/- 19. Out of this amount the KSRTC bus has already paid Rs.15,000/- as exgratia amount which shall be - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 deducted from out of the total compensation amount. This amount would ought to be deducted. Therefore, in all the claimants/appellants should be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,14,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum as mentioned in the table below. Heads Amount in Rs. Lose of love and affection 1,60,000.00 loss of estate 4,20,000.00 Towards funeral expenses 15,000.00 Towards transportation of dead body 15,000.00 Escalation 19,000.00 TOTAL 6,29,000-00 Ex gratia amount - 15,000.00 TOTAL 6,14,000-00 20. Accordingly I pass the following order. ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6007 MFA No. 5338 of 2022 ii) The judgment and award dated 01.04.2022 passed by the 8th Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru in MVC.No.610/2020 is modified; iii) Claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,14,000/- along with interest at 9 percent per annum. iv) Enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6 percent per annum v) All other terms with regard to apportionment ordered by the tribunal stands intact and retained vi) Entire amount shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant to their bank account on the appellants furnishing relevant bank details on proper identification. vii) Balance amount shall be paid by the respondent Insurance company within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order viii) Ordered accordingly Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1