- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2714 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O. LATE NAGARAJU, 2. SHIVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O. LATE NAGARAJU, 3. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. LATE NAGARAJU, ALL ARE R/AT BOVIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572122. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ABDUL KHADAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SREEDHARAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, R/AT AVALAHALLI, SINGANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 2023, HIG, III PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU -560064, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2023 R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.283/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.10.2016 passed in M.V.C. No.283 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumakuru (for short 'the Tribunal'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2012 at about 9.00 p.m., when one Sri Pandukumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was crossing Sira - Bangalore road near Durga Bar, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-04-C-6741 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, deceased sustained head injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Due to his death, natural mother, step mother and brother have lost their dependency, this led to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on various heads. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has vehemently contended that without considering the material available on record, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on lower side. He submits that the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident and was working as Computer Operator in Taluk Office and also - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 involved in doing DTP work, he was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month and he further contended that the Tribunal, has not granted, fair and reasonable compensation under conventional heads. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further submits that the Tribunal has considered 50% towards future prospects, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 which has to be reduced to 40%. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard Sri. Abdul Khadar for Sri Mushtaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants and Sri. B.S. Umesh, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 Company and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 7. As there is no dispute regarding the death in a road traffic accident occurred on 09.06.2012 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing Registration No.KA-04-C-6741 and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?” 8. The accident is of the year 2012 and no documentary evidence is placed on record to assess the income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority as well as the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident. The respondent - Insurance Company has not disputed this aspect. As per the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant is '15'. 9. The Tribunal has wrongly added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, 40% of the assessed income must be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.2,800/- (7,000 X 40%) and the total income comes to Rs.9,800/- per month (7,000 + 2,800). The deceased died as a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of the income shall be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and it works out to Rs.4,900/- per month (9,800 X 50%). The deceased was aged 36 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, the applicable multiplier would be ‘15’ and it works out to Rs.8,82,000/- (4,900 X 12 X 15). This would be the ‘loss of dependency’ as against Rs.8,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 10. The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing compensation under conventional heads. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case, stated supra, has discussed about granting the compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ and has also issued guidelines for grant of ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The claimants are mother, step mother and brother of the deceased. Since claimant No.2 is the natural mother of the deceased she is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium' and claimant Nos.1 and 3 are the step mother and step brother of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'. Further, the claimants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head 'Loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards 'Funeral expenses'. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 11. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Loss of dependency 8,82,000 Loss of consortium 40,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Towards Transportation and Funeral expenses 15,000 TOTAL 9,52,000 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 8,58,000 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 94,000 12. In the result, we pass the following O R D E R i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,52,000/- as against Rs.8,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation of Rs.94,000/- from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017 iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. v. Draw modified award accordingly. vi. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with its records to the Tribunal, forthwith. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed off. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19