- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3475 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ASHA, W/O LATE BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. BABY SANJAY R.B., S/O LATE BASAVARAJ, SINCE BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND 3. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O LATE RANGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK, SANTHESHIVARA POST, RAMPURA VILLAGE, R/O HASSAN CITY, RAJAGHATTA. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT.RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VIJAYANNA L., S/O LAKKE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT HOUSE NO.712, 'SAVI', 1ST MAIN, 8TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, HASSAN. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, I.C.I.C.I. LAMBARD GENERAL Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, MAXYMAM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, L.H.H. ROAD, HAMSANAKATTE, MANGALORE. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS ABATED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.409/2019 BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN. 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 claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 15.04.2021 passed in MVC.No.409/2019 by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (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 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The claimants are none other than the wife, son and mother of the deceased Basavaraj, who was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.K.A.05-EQ-8576 along with his friend Sri Manje Gowda. At that time, a car bearing registration No.K.A.05-MD-1142 came in a rash and negligent manner and without indicating any signal, stopped the car in order to take a right turn, due to which, the motorcycle, which was coming behind, was unable to control and dashed against the car. As a result, the rider Basavaraj sustained grievous injuries and unfortunately, succumbed to the said injuries. Hence, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3.1 On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 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.16,22,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and also held respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the compensation awarded is on the lower side without taking proper income as per the notional income chart prescribed by the Legal Services Authority and also the consortium to the minor child has not been awarded. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement. 5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company sustains the judgment - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 and award passed by the tribunal and contends that just and reasonable compensation is awarded. As no proof of income is produced, notional income taken is correct. Also, he contends that the interest component awarded is on the higher side and the same requires to be reduced. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for appellants- claimants 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 P19. The negligence has been rightly attributed against the driver of the offending car, which has not been questioned. 7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is stated that the tribunal taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,000/- per month. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 of Rs.12,500/- for the accident of the year 2018. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.12,500/-. The age of the deceased was 37 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘15’, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The tribunal has rightly awarded 40% in addition to the income as future prospects and deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which also do not call for interference and the same are retained. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.21,00,060/- (Rs.12,500/- + 40% = Rs.17,500/- - 1/3rd = Rs.11,667/- x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.15,12,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 8. The tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium and the same requires to be modified. As there are three dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- per head as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore, under the head loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3) along with 20% escalation towards two block periods, which would be Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- + 20%). 9. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which also do not call for interference. In all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.30,000/- under these heads. However, 20% escalation on the same to be awarded, 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.22,80,060/- as against Rs.16,22,000/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 21,00,060-00 Loss of consortium 1,44,000-00 Loss of estate and funeral expenses 36,000-00 TOTAL 22,80,060-00 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 15.04.2021 passed in MVC.No.409/2019 by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, is modified; iii) The claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.22,80,060/- as against Rs.16,22,000/- awarded by the tribunal; iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.16,22,000/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by respondent No.2-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6690 MFA No. 3475 of 2021 vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants 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