- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. P SHILPI @ NANJA, S/O GANESHA @ BASAVA, S/O H.R LATE RANGA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2. PANI YARAVARA APPI @ MUTHAPPA, S/O P SHILPI @ NANJA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. BOTH ARE PRESENTLY WORKING AND R/AT C/O DEVAKI, AIVATHOKLU VILLAGE, BENGOORU, CHERAMBANE POST, MADIKERI TALUK-571 201. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUMA K, ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI F.S DABALI, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.98/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, KODAGU, MADIKERI, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. Even though the matter is slated for admission, by consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC.No.98/2019 dated 31.07.2020 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, the petitioners are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. It is the contention of the appellants that on 26.05.2019, the petitioners, who are the husband and son of the deceased had been to Mariamma Temple at Thithimathi Village, Virajpet Taluk and while they were - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 returning to their village by walk on Hunsur-Gonikoppa road, the bus owned by respondent-Corporation bearing Reg.No.KA-18-F-0671 came in high speed and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, resulting in death of the deceased on the spot. The appellants contend that the deceased was earning Rs.400/- per day contributing to the family and due to her untimely death, the petitioners are suffering and as such, adequate compensation be awarded to them. 5. The respondent-Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and contended that there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the negligence was on the part of the deceased herself. It is contended that the deceased was drunken and had lost her control. Therefore, denying the age, income and occupation of the deceased, the respondent-Corporation resisted the petition. 6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P13 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 were marked. The driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident, even though the petitioners had contended that she was aged 35 years and by adopting the notional income of Rs.9,000/-, awarded a compensation of Rs.10,06,000/- under the following heads: SL. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) 1 Loss of dependency 9,36,000/- 2 Loss of estate 15,000/- 3 Loss of consortium 40,000/- 4 Loss of funeral expenses 15,000/- TOTAL 10,06,000/- 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking reassessment of the compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that though the petitioners had contended that the deceased was earning Rs.400/- per - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 day, the same is below the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of disputes is to be considered for the calculation of the compensation amount. She further submits that the age of the deceased was held to be 46 years, by considering the age of the petitioners, the said method adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect and considering the age of the petitioner No.2 to be 23 years at the time of filing the petition, the Tribunal could have held that the age of the deceased was between 41 to 45 years. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant seek reassessment of the compensation. 9. Per contra, Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation would submit that the petitioners having mentioned the income of the deceased at Rs.400/- per day, they cannot seek enhancement of the compensation on account of the notional income applicable for settlement of disputes - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 before Lok-adalat. Secondly, he contend that the age of the deceased is appropriately considered by the Tribunal and there is no need for any indulgence. 10. It is the settled principles of law that even though the claim made in the claim petition is on the lower side, the Tribunal is empowered to consider the adequate compensation. It is trite law that the compensation to be awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act speaks of a just and reasonable compensation and invoking the said rule, the Courts have held that there is no bar for the Tribunal to consider any higher compensation even though the same is not pleaded. In fact, the pleadings are also very short and it should be in the format, which is annexed to the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, it is the duty of the Tribunal to determine a just and reasonable compensation irrespective of the averments made in the petition. 11. The perusal of records would reveal that the Aadhar Card of petitioner No.2 show that he was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. This inevitably results in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 the conclusion that the deceased was aged more than 41 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal presumes that the age of the deceased to be 46 years by considering the age of petitioner No.1, who states that he is aged 52 years. When Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 was available, there is no reason for the Tribunal to discard the fact that the deceased may be aged 41 to 45 years. In that view of the matter, the one which is beneficial for the appellants needs to be considered and as such, the multiplier is held to be '14'. 12. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the Lok-adalat prescribed a notional income of Rs.14,000/- for the year 2019. In umpteen number of judgments it is held that the notional income prescribed by the KSLSA is in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, they are acceptable. Therefore, under no stretch of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 imagination, it could have been held that the earnings are below the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation that the claim made by the claimants at Rs.12,000/- as the income of the deceased cannot be accepted. 13. In view of the above discussions, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' is calculated by considering the future prospects of the deceased at 25%, which results in multiplicand of 17,500/- . Hence, the quantum of compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' is of Rs.19,60,000/- (Rs.17,500/- X 14 X 2/3 X 12) by deducting 1/3rd towards the 'personal expenses' of the deceased. 14. As held in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the petitioners are also entitled for the compensation under the head of 'loss of love and affection' and by allowing 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 three escalations at 10% at every 3 years, the same is calculated as Rs.52,000/- X 2 = Rs.1,04,000/-. Similarly, the compensation after three escalations at 10% under the head of 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate' is held at Rs.19,000/- each. 15. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: 16. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.10,96,000/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) Loss of dependency 19,60,000/- Loss of love and affection 1,04,000/- Funeral expenses 19,000/- Loss of estate 19,000/- 21,02,000/- 10,06,000/- TOTAL Less awarded by Tribunal Enhancement 10,96,000/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39085 MFA No. 1232 of 2022 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.10,96,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22