- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 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. 6981 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHAMAMMA, W/O LATE RANGAIAH @ RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT HALEBANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 451. …APPELLANT (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MOHAN KUMAR J., S/O JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT BALEMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 245. (DRIVER OF BIKE NO.KA-147-EC-3207 D.L.NO.KA 14 20170006488) 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HARSHA COMPLEX, CHURCH OPPOSITE, B .H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER. 3. JAYANNA, S/O DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT BALEMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, D.G. HALLI POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 245. (RC OWNER OF BIKE NO.KA-147-EC-3207) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS DISPENSED) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 of 2021 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.722/2018 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-12 AT 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 claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 02.12.2019 passed in MVC.No.722/2018 by the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-12, 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: On 12.01.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased Rangaiah @ Rangappa was crossing N.H.206 by-pass road, at that time, a bike bearing registration No.KA-14- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 of 2021 EC-3207 came in a rash and negligent manger and dashed against the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injures and succumbed to the said injuries. Hence, the claimant, who is the legal representative of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3.1 On service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their respective statement of objections, 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.5,45,200/- with interest @ 7% p.a. and directed respondent No.3-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within two months. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 of 2021 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has awarded inadequate and meager compensation, which calls for interference. The tribunal has committed an error by taking the lesser income and also, while deducting the personal and living expenses of the deceased, has taken 50% deduction instead of 1/3rd, which requires to be taken in the present facts and circumstances of the case. On these grounds, he seeks to allow his appeal and consequently enhance the compensation. 5. Per contra, Sri B.C.Shivannegowda, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of the tribunal and contends that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. He further contended that since the appellant-claimant is the sole dependent, the question of awarding 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses would not arise; 50% awarded by the tribunal is correct, he justifies the same. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 of 2021 He also contends that the interest component awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side, which requires to be reduced. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant- claimant 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 P8. The negligence has been rightly attributed against the rider of the motor bike. 7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income for awarding compensation to the claimant, it is seen that the deceased was aged 60 years as on the date of occurrence of accident and the appropriate multiplier applied by the tribunal is '9', which does not call for interference. The income taken by the tribunal is Rs.8,000/- 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 of 2021 Authority prescribes the income of Rs.12,500/- for the accident of the year 2018. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.12,5000/- per month. The tribunal has rightly awarded 10% in addition to the income as future prospects, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The deduction towards personal and living expenses requires to be adopted at 1/3rd rather than 50%. In view of the deceased having been married and the appellant being the dependent, this Court has already taken a view in MFA No.4016/2022, the same would be applicable for the present case. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.9,90,036/- (Rs.12,500/- + 10% = Rs.13,750/- - 1/3rd = Rs.9,167/- x 12 x 9) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.4,75,200/- awarded by the tribunal. 8. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, which does not call for interference. However, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 of 2021 Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, 20% escalation for two blocks period on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 20%). 9. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/-, which do not call for interference. However, as per the aforesaid decision, 20% escalation for two blocks period on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 20%). 10. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,74,036/- as against Rs.5,45,200/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 9,90,036-00 Loss of consortium 48,000-00 Loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses 36,000-00 TOTAL 10,74,036-00 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 of 2021 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 02.12.2019 passed in MVC.No.722/2018 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-12 at Bengaluru, is modified; iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,74,036/- as against Rs.5,45,200/- awarded by the tribunal; iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 7% p.a. on the compensation amount of Rs.5,45,200/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Compnay within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5856 MFA No. 6981 of 2021 vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper verification; vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact; viii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK