- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5758/2014 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5755/2014 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5759/2014 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5760/2014 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 5758/2014 BETWEEN: SRI VENKATESH S/O GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT RAGI MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND, KILLARIPET, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL-562114. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NEAR CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001. 2. SRI. SRIDHAR S/O CHIKKALAKSHMAMMA Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 NO.141/3, KILARIPET, HOSKOTE TOWN, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1)OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.3798/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ADDL. C.M.M., AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. IN MFA NO. 5755/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SOMOJI RAO, S/O MUNNOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SMT. INDUBAI W/O SOMAJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.57, HOSKOTE TOWN, 5TH DIVISION, KILARIPET, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE-562114. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NEAR CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 2. SRI SRIDHAR S/O CHIKKALAKSHMAMMA NO. 141/3, KILARIPET, HOSKOTE TOWN, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.3799/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ADDL. C.M.M., (SCCH- 23), AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. IN MFA NO. 5759/2014 BETWEEN: SRI SRINIVAS S/O S.MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT RAGI MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND, KILLARIPET, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL-562114. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NEAR CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 2. SRI SRIDHAR S/O CHIKKALAKSHMAMMA NO. 141/3, KILARIPET, HOSKOTE TOWN, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.3804/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ADDITIONAL C.M.M., AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. IN MFA NO. 5760/2014 BETWEEN: SRI BALAJI KADAM S/O SUBEDAR MANNOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT RAGI MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND, KILLARIPET, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL-562114. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NEAR CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 2. SRI SRIDHAR S/O CHIKKALAKSHMAMMA NO. 141/3, KILARIPET, HOSKOTE TOWN, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED13.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.3803/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ADDITIONAL C.M.M, AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT All these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 13th March 2014, passed by the XXI Addl.Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-23), (for short, `the Tribunal') in MVC.No.3798/2012, MVC.No.3799/2012, MVC.No. 3803/2012 and MVC.No.3804/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 3. Though these appeals are slated for hearing on admission, with consent of both the side, they are taken up for final disposal. 4. The brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal are that : On 29.02.2012, at around 1.30 a.m., one Manjunath Rao, Sridhar, Balaji Kadam and Venkatesh were returning from Gudhsetpalli to Hoskote in the offending Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-MA-9099. The driver of the said vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, because of the same, in front of Al-Ameen College, on Malur road, the vehicle over turned and inmates of the vehicle sustained injuries. 5. MFA.No.5758/2014 was filed by the claimant in MVC.No.3798/2012 by name Venkatesh. In the petition averments, he has stated that, after the accident, he went to the Government Hospital at Hosakote and thereafter to M.V.J. Hospital, Victoria Hospital and then to NIMHANS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Chinmaya Hospital, wherein he was treated as an inpatient. In the accident, he sustained fractures. After discharge from the hospital, he was advised to take bed rest for six months. He has spent more than Rs.1 lakh towards medical expenses, special diet, transportation charges etc., He was aged about 44 years and working as a driver in KSRTC and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 6. MFA.No.5755/2014 is filed by the claimants in MVC.No.3799/2012, who are the legal heirs of deceased Manjunath Rao, who was also travelling in the above said TATA Qualis vehicle. The said deceased was aged about 25 years and earning Rs.25,000/- per month by running a business. The claimants being the parents of the deceased, were dependent on the income of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.30 lakhs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 7. MFA.No.5759/2014 is filed by the claimant in MVC.No.3804/2012 by name Srinivas. In the petition averments, he has stated that, he was aged 35 years and working as a carpenter and earning Rs.300/- per day. In the accident, he sustained fractures and spent substantial amount towards medical and other incidental expenses. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 8. MFA.No.5760/2014 is filed by the claimant in MVC.No.3803/2012 by name Balaji Kadam. He sustained injuries in the said accident. According to the petition averments, he was aged 32 years and was working as an electrician and earning Rs.300/- per day. He sustained grievous injuries and spent more than Rs.1 lakh towards medical expenses. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 9. Respondent No.1 being the insurer of the offending TATA Qualis vehicle in all the above cases appeared before - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 the Tribunal and filed its written statement in each case. In its written statement, it denied the contents of the claim petitions. It has further stated that the driver of the said Qualis vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation. It has contended that the injuries sustained by the claimants and the death of Manjunath were not caused by the accident involving the offending vehicle. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petitions. 10. Respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle, did not appear before the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal framed relevant issues in each case based on the pleadings of the parties. 12. All the matters arises out of common accident. Evidence of claimants was recorded in each case. In MVC - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 Nos. 3799/2012 and 3798/2012, common evidence was recorded, wherein petitioner/Venkatesh in MVC No. 3798/2012 was examined as PW-2 and marked 10 documents, as per Exs.P-11 to P-20. Petitioner No.1 in MVC No.3799/2012 was examined as PW-1 and marked 10 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-10. MVC Nos.3804/2012 and 3803/2012 were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. Claimants in each case were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. 13. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, answered issue No.1 in all the cases in affirmative i.e., accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Quails bearing registration No.KA-20-MA-9099, by its driver. The claimants had sustained grievous injuries. With respect to awarding of compensation, the Tribunal answered issue No.2 in MVC Nos.3798/2012, 3803/2012 and 3804/2012 in the negative. Issue No.2 in MVC No.3799/2012 was answered partly in the affirmative and directed owner of the vehicle to pay the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 compensation. The same is challenged in the present appeals by the respective claimants. 14. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complaint was registered by one of the inmates, within a short period of the incident, wherein name of the driver was mentioned as Murali Krishna. Police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the said Murali Krishna. He has not challenged the charge sheet. The insurer has not taken any such contention that Murali Krishna was not driving the said offending vehicle. The Tribunal on the basis of Ex.P-13 marked in MVC Nos.3798/2012 and 3799/2012, held that the claimant in MVC No.3798/2012 was driving the offending vehicle. There was no reason for the claimant to subvert the said fact. Both the said Venkatesh and Murali Krishna also had a driving license to drive the said class of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 vehicle, including the transport vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal's apprehension that Venkatesh might have been the driver of the said vehicle and that a false case was made out during the trial, suggesting that the claimants did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands, is an unwarranted observation of the Tribunal. Therefore, claimants prayed for setting aside the same and to award a just and reasonable amount of compensation. 16. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that the Tribunal has rightly held that the offending vehicle was driven by the claimant in MVC No.3798/2012 and not by Murali Krishna. For reasons best known to the claimants, the name Murali Krishna was mentioned in the FIR as a driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, on the basis of self-serving statement of the injured i.e., claimant in MVC No.3798/2012, rightly held that the said Murali Krishna, was not driving the offending vehicle. Therefore, it rightly dismissed the three claim petitions and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 compensation in one of the claim petitions. This does not call for any interference. 17. Learned advocate further contends that the Tribunal is required to address only those questions on which issues have been framed. A Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings or the contentions raised by the parties during the course of the trial. While parties may plead certain facts, it is not uncommon that for some contentions to be abandoned during the trial, and no party should be taken by surprise based on a fact that was never pleaded or argued. In the present case, during the cross-examination of the claimants in MVC Nos.3798/2012, 3803/2012, and 3804/2012, there was no suggestions made that Venkatesh was driving the vehicle. No such case was ever put forward by the respondents. Looking at the cross-examinations of the said witnesses shows that even the occurrence of the accident itself was not denied. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly answered Issue No.1 in all four cases in the affirmative. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 18. It is important to note that the insurer did not raise any objection regarding Murali Krishna not being the driver of the offending vehicle. However, during the course of its judgment, the Tribunal relied on Ex.P-13 and inferred that Venkatesh, the claimant in MVC No. 3798/2012, was the driver of the vehicle. Based on this inference, the Tribunal has disbelieved the claimant's version and concluded that the claimants had not approached the Court with clean hands. 19. Insurer further contended that it is a duty of the Court to investigate the truth on the basis of materials placed on record. The point raised by the Tribunal during the course of its judgment is, its doubt that Venkatesh was driving the vehicle, however this was not an issue raised by either party during the trial. At least, the Tribunal ought to have given the parties an opportunity to address arguments on that specific point. However, without affording such an opportunity, the Tribunal proceeded to presume, based on Ex.P-13, that Venkatesh himself was - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 driving the vehicle and that this fact had been suppressed, and that a complaint had subsequently been lodged. 20. It is also pertinent to note that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment at paragraph No.10 noted that the accident occurred on 29.02.2012, at about 01.30 a.m.(midnight) and the complaint was given at 04.30 p.m. Therefore, there could have been a chance of concoction is not probable. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.P-1, the incident took place in the early morning of 29.02.2012 at 01.30 a.m. (midnight); within 3 hours, a complaint was lodged i.e., at 04.30 a.m. and not 04.30 evening. The complainant is none other than inmate of the vehicle. It is also to be noted that owner of the vehicle was also an inmate of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has noted regarding violation of Section 134(C) of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is pertinent to note that, as per Ex.P-1, owner of the vehicle called the ambulance and tried to shift the injured to the hospital. It appears, the matter was reported to the police and accordingly, another inmate - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 of the vehicle within 3 hours lodged a complaint. Therefore, the question of violation of Section 134(A) and (B) does not arise. 21. For the sake of discussion, even if we presume that real fact was suppressed, there must have been a probable reason for the same. The insurance company has not brought out in the cross-examination of the claimants - PW-1 in MVC Nos.3798/2012, 3803/2012 and 3804/2012. According to the contention of the claimant in MVC No.3798/2012 i.e., Venkatesh, he had a valid licence to drive bus as well as a transport vehicle. Therefore, even if it is assumed that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, he was duly licensed to do so. Moreover, even if Venkatesh suppressed facts or submitted false information before the Court, the other two claim petitioners were third parties and were not connected with that issue. It was also immediately submitted by learned counsel for the insurer that none of the claim petitions mentioned the name of the driver. Therefore, the question - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 of furnishing false information to the Court may not arise. Under such circumstances, dismissal of MVC Nos.3803/2012 and 3804/2012 is also unwarranted. 22. The complaint was not lodged by the owner of the vehicle. He remained ex parte in the present proceedings. There is no specific allegation from the insurer that owner had played fraud against insurance company. When no such cases are made out and no such contentions are taken, exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation in MVC No. 3799/2012 is not in accordance with law. 23. Ex.P-1 i.e., FIR, was lodged by one Chandrashekar within 3 hours of the accident. The said Chandrashekar, in his complaint stated that due to the incident, said Venkatesh, sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to the hospital along with two other injured persons. Therefore, there was no time for discussion or deliberation, and it is also difficult to believe that, within a period of three hours from the time of the accident, a - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 complaint was lodged. Even the inmates of the vehicle may not have come out of the shock and trauma to discuss and deliberate. Hence, the claim that a false case was filed is hard to accept. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the facts were manipulated in Ex.P-1 are not believable. 24. On the same day i.e., the date of accident, (29.02.2012), initially Venkatesh was taken to the Government Hospital, Hoskote. Thereafter, he was taken to M.V.J. Hospital, Hoskote, and from there to Victoria Hospital, wherein Ex.P-13 was given, noting that he was riding the said vehicle. The same day at about 02.30 a.m., he was taken to NIMHANS Hospital, wherein it was stated as a passenger of the said vehicle. Looking at the other circumstances, the writings in Ex.P-13 that he "was a rider of the said Qualis vehicle" appear to be a mistake. It does not appear that with any mala fide intention, false information was given before the concerned hospital - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 authorities. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in this regard is not tenable. 25. The Tribunal itself held, on the basis of available materials that the claimant sustained injuries in a vehicle accident involving a Toyota Qualis bearing registration No.KA-20-MA-9099 and was entitled to claim the compensation. MVC NO.3798/2012 (MFA No.5758/2014) 26. The wound certificate of Venkatesh is marked in MVC No.3798/2012 at Ex.P-11, which indicates that he sustained the following injuries. It was given by M.V.J. Medical College and Research Hospital, Hoskote. "1. A cut wound of 4-5 X 0-5-1 c.m. is present on the (R) side of the forehead near his eyebrow. 2. Tenderness over entire neck is present. 3. Tenderness over the entire back is present. 4. Tenderness over the front of (R) side of chest is present." - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 Ex.P-13 shows that he sustained the following injuries: 1. Sutured Wound over the (R) eyebrow. 2. Abrasion over the (R) forearm and black eye of (R) side. Ex.P.14 of the said case is a discharge summary given by Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-38, which shows that he sustained following injuries: 1. Fracture redial 1/3rd of (L) leg. 2. Fracture of inferior pubic ramus (L). 3. Soft tissue injury cervical spine and T.L spine. 4. Lacerated wound over the right eyebrow. 5. Head injury. 27. He has produced the Medical bills total worth Rs.17,206/- at Ex.P-15. He has also produced the X-ray and other lab testing reports under Ex.P-18. He has not examined the doctor to prove the alleged disability. However, the said injuries were not seriously disputed during cross-examination, except a denial that he - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 sustained any injuries in the accident. From the above said materials, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation. Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 75,000/- Medical expenses 17,206/- Special diet, Conveyance and attendant charges 20,000/- Loss of amenities 25,000/- Total 1,37,206/- The claimant is entitled for Rs.1,37,206/-. MVC NO.3799/2012 (IN MFA NO.5755/2014) 28. The claimants contend that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the multiplier taken by the Tribunal based on the age of the youngest parent is not in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another1. Future prospectors have also not been 1 AIR 2009 SCC 3104 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 considered. Therefore, the claimants prayed for enhancement of the same. 29. The Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- p.m. Undisputedly, the deceased was aged about 25 years, which is noted in the post-mortem report and the same is accepted by the Tribunal also. Therefore, 40% of the said income has to be added towards 'future prospectus'. The multiplier applicable in this case is '18', since the age of the deceased is 25 years. However, the Tribunal has taken multiplier on the basis of age of the youngest parent that is mother of the deceased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that, the multiplier has to be considered on the basis of the age of the unmarried person and not on age of the youngest parents of the deceased. 30. The Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head 'loss of consortium', as per the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram3. Similarly, the amount awarded under other two heads is not in accordance with law laid down in the Pranay Sethi case so far. Therefore, the said amounts requires recalculation. The deceased was unmarried, therefore, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for following amount of compensation. Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency (8,000+40%X12X18X50%) 12,09,600/- Loss of consortium 18,000/- Funeral expenses 50,000/- Loss of estate 50,000/- Total 13,27,600/- Rounded off 13,28,000/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- 7,37,000/- 5,91,000/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 IN MVC NOS.3803/2012 AND 3804/2012 (IN MFA NOS.5760/2014 and 5759/2014):- 31. In MVC No.3803/2012, the claimant has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P-11 to show that he sustained lacerated wound over his left elbow, tenderness over upper part of the back and compression facture of the L1 vertebra. Except Ex.P-11, he has not produced any other records, regarding the expenditure incurred towards medical expenses, which was a consequence of the injury sustained by him. 32. The claimant in MVC No.3804/2012 i.e., Srinivas, has produced wound certificate given by M.V.J. Hospital at Ex.P-7. It indicates that he sustained laceration head injury and fracture of laceration haemorrhage. He produced the discharge summary given by Manipal Hospital at Ex.P-8; it indicates that he was admitted as an inpatient from 01.03.2012 to 05.03.2012. It shows that he had a laceration head injury and traumatic SAH. He - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 produced hospital receipt at Ex.P-10; the total amount of receipt is Rs.40,182/-. He has not examined the doctor to prove the other injuries mentioned in Ex.P-7. Considering the injury stated in the wound certificate, evidence of petitoner as well as medical expenses, global compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the claimant in MVC No.3803/2012 and Rs.75,000/- is awarded to the claimant in MVC No.3804/2012. 33. Undisputedly, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and as on the date of the accident the policy of insurance was in force. Therefore, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are jointly and severely liable to pay the above said compensation. The claimants are also entitled for interest on the said compensation amount from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals in MFA Nos.5755/2014, 5758/2014, 5759/2014 and 5760/2014 are allowed. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 ii) The judgment and award dated 13th March 2014, passed in MVC.Nos.3798/2012, 3799/2012, 3803/2012 and 3804/2012 by the MACT and XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH-23), stands modified. iii) The claimant in MFA No.5758/14 is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,37,206/-. The claimants in MFA No.5755/2014 are entitled to *enhanced compensation of Rs.5,91,000/-. The claimants in MFA Nos.5760/2014 and 5759/2014 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively as global compensation. In all cases, the claimants are entitled to interest *on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. iv) In MFA No.5758/2014 claimant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 416 days in filing the appeal. *Corrected vide court order dated 26/11/2025. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26010 MFA No. 5758 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 5755 of 2014 MFA No. 5759 of 2014 MFA No.5760 of 2014 v) Apportionment, release and deposit made by the Tribunal in respect of MFA No.5755/2014 is not disbursed. vi) The amount of compensation awarded in other cases is marginal. Therefore, entire amount of the compensation is ordered to be released in favour of the respective claimants on due identification. vii) Draw award accordingly. *viii) Respondent No.1 shall deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BK,AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 * Corrected vide court order dated 26/11/2025