- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3580 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. MANGALA, W/O LATE RAMANJI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. MR. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE RAMANJI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT PALANAJOGIHALLI, J.P.NAGAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHANKAR PRASAD M.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. IFFCO-TOKIO GEN.INS.CO.LTD., NO.41, 2ND FLOOR, VISHNU COMPLEX, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE - 561 203. 2. SRI MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE KEMPANNA, HEGGANAHALLI, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI NANJEGOWDA C, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 05.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.6319/2019 BY XI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BENGALURU. 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 challenging the judgment and award dated 05.01.2021 passed in MVC.No.6319/2019 by the Court of XI Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: That on 18.09.2019 at about 6.00 p.m., One Mr.Ramanji was proceeding in a TVS heavy duty bearing registration No.KA-43-V-7122 on Chikkaballapura to Doddaballapura road as a pillion rider, at that time, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-14-D-5555 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS heavy duty two wheeler. Due to the said impact, the said Ramanji fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Unfortunately, succumbed to the injuries while being treated in the hospital. Hence, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3.1 On service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written statements, denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 3.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,50,675/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and also held respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and directed respondent No.1-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within two months. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has committed a gross error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation. The tribunal has taken the income on the lower side and the deduction towards personal and living expenses is required to be taken at 1/3rd. The tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation under other heads also. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company sustains the impugned order on the ground that the same is just and reasonable and in fact, contends that under the head of consortium, higher compensation is awarded, which requires adjustment, if at all, if this Court were to enhance the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 compensation. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for appellants- claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and death having occurred due to the road traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P17. The negligence has been rightly attributed against the driver of the offending bus. 7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is stated that the income taken by the tribunal is Rs.11,000/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.14,000/- for the accident of the year 2019. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.14,000/- per month. The age of the deceased was 49 years at the time of accident. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘13’, which does not call for interference. The tribunal has rightly awarded 25% in addition to the income as future prospects, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The tribunal has deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, which is not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the co- ordinate bench of this Court and also another judgment passed by this Court in MFA No.4016/2022. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.18,20,052/- (Rs.14,000/- + 25% = Rs.17,500/- - 1/3rd = Rs.11,667/- x 12 x 13) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.10,72,500/- awarded by the tribunal. 8. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,68,175/- towards medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. 9. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards love and filial affection and Rs.50,000/- towards consortium. As there are two dependents, each would be entitled to a sum - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 of Rs.40,000/- per head as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore, under the head loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2) along with 10% escalation towards one block period, which would be Rs.88,000/- (Rs.80,000/- + 10%). 10. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, but the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards transportation of the dead body. In view of the consortium awarded, which is in excess of Rs.20,000/- is adjusted towards the head funeral expenses and transportation of the dead body. The claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.20,000/-) towards funeral expenses and transportation of the dead body. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 11. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,06,227/- as against Rs.13,50,675/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 18,20,052-00 Loss of consortium 88,000-00 Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body 30,000-00 Medical expenses 1,68,175-00 TOTAL 21,06,227-00 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 05.01.2021 passed in MVC.No.6319/2019 by the Court of XI Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru, is modified; iii) The claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.21,06,227/- as against Rs.13,50,675/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.; iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5989 MFA No. 3580 of 2021 with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal are undisturbed and retained; vi) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK