- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35360 MFA No. 7862 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7862 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, 1ST FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 01 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT LAKKAMMA W/OI LATE NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. VISHALAMMA D/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35360 MFA No. 7862 of 2015 4. RAMESH M.S. S/O SOMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O MANCHIHALLI VILLAGE, BYADAGERE POST, KADABA HOBLI, GUBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH A.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. C.S. MADHU, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.795/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, GUBBI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.8,32,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments on both the sides. 2. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the award of the Tribunal dated 09.06.2015 passed in MVC No.795/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-17, Gubbi (for short 'Tribunal'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35360 MFA No. 7862 of 2015 3. The brief facts of the claimants' case are as here under: That claimants No.1 to 3 are the wife, son and daughter of the deceased Narasaiah. On 11/02/2011 at 10.00 am, one Narasaiah S/o Late Madaiah was proceeding at the extreme end of left side of Sirivara K.G. Temple road with care and cautiously at Nagasandra village, Gubbi Taluk towards K.G. temple, when he reached in front of Krishnappa's house at that relevant point of time one luggage auto bearing Reg.No.KA-06-B-0259 being driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules came from his back side and dashed against the said Narasaiah and caused the accident. As a result of which the said Narasaiah fell down on the road and he sustained injuries on his leg, hands, head and other vital parts of the body and immediately he was shifted to District government hospital, after fist aid he was referred to Nimhans hospital, and they referred to Tumkur District hospital wherein he was admitted as inpatient and while taking treatment the deceased Narasaiah was died оn 15.02.2011 at about 5 am, due to the injuries sustained in the accident. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35360 MFA No. 7862 of 2015 4. One Narasappa met with an accident on 11.02.2011 at 10.00 a.m. His second wife and two children filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.8,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/ Insurance Company preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal instead of taking the age of the deceased, wrongly considered the age of the first petitioner/second wife for the purpose of calculation, which amounts to a patent error requiring rectification. It is further contended that there is no income proof, but the Tribunal considered income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m., whereas, having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2011, the income ought to have been taken at Rs.6,500/- p.m. 6. It is further contended that, though the evidence indicates that the first wife Revamma died, her death certificate has not been produced, since the said death certificate has not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35360 MFA No. 7862 of 2015 been filed and she was not impleaded as a party in the present claim petition, she cannot be added subsequently by the claimant and she is not entitled to any compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the age of the deceased has been inconsistently recorded in the documents. In the post-mortem report (Ex.P8), it is shown as 55 years, whereas in the discharge card (Ex.P9), it is recorded as 75 years. Similarly, in the MLC extracts (Ex.R3 and Ex.R4) filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the age is shown as 75 years, but in the C.T. Scan receipt (Ex.P10), it is recorded as 60 years. It is for the petitioner to prove the correct age of the deceased. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 objected that since claimant No.2, who is the son of the deceased, is shown as 42 years old, as such, the age of the deceased cannot be taken as 55 years. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also submits that claimants might have mentioned a lesser age only to get more compensation. Admittedly Ex.P9 is the earliest document and the documents filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, consistently show the age of the deceased as 75 years. Having regard to the fact that second and third claimant (children) are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35360 MFA No. 7862 of 2015 aged 38 years and 25 years, this Court finds it just and reasonable to take the age of the deceased as 75 years and to apply the multiplier of ‘5’. 9. In the absence of any proof of income, though it was stated that the deceased was an agriculturalist, as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), his income is to be taken at Rs.6,500/- p.m. the deceased was aged more than 60 years, he is not entitled to future prospects. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the second and third claimant, being the children of the deceased aged about 38 years and 25 years respectively, cannot be considered as dependents, and only the wife of the deceased is to be treated as a dependent. 11. Therefore, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.6,500/- minus 50%, which amounts to Rs.3,250/- p.m., and the multiplier is 5, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,250 × 12 × 5 = Rs.1,95,000/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35360 MFA No. 7862 of 2015 12. The first claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards Loss Consortium. The second and third claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards Parental Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 2 =Rs.80,000/-). Apart from these, they are entitled to conventional heads namely, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, which together comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. 13. The total compensation works out to Rs.1,95,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- = Rs.3,45,000/-. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.8,32,000/- to Rs.3,45,000/-, thereby reducing the compensation by a sum of Rs.4,87,000/-. Therefore, on perusal of the records, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to allow the appeal. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35360 MFA No. 7862 of 2015 a period of one month from the date of this order. iii) On such deposit, the first claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the accrued interest. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22