- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5950 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. DAYANANDA NAIK, S/O NAGAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SANDHYA D, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 3. VINDHYA D, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KUKKUJE VILALGE, KATTADHAMANE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND/GUARDIAN FATHER APPELLANT NO.1 DAYANAND NAIK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJA RAMA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. AKSHAY, S/O RAGHUCHANDRA BALLAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT MUDODIGUTTU HOUSE, TODAR VILLAGE, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 MANGALORE TALUK D K DISTRICT – 575 001. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MANIPAL, UDAYAVANI BUILDING, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT – 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.407/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE MVC CASE UPTO RS.18,55,000/- AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimants/appellants seeking for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 25.11.2014 in MVC No.407/2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Principal Senior Civil Judge at Udupi, (‘Tribunal’, for short) whereby, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 the Tribunal partly allowing the claim petition awarded compensation of Rs.8,95,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum in respect of death of Anitha Naik, wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellant Nos.2 and 3. 2. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death of Anitha Naik and the liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute in this appeal is inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Heard Sri.Rajaram S., learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Though notice to respondent No.1 is served, but remained unrepresented. 4. Sri.Rajaram S., learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the year of accident was 2012. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, in respect of unskilled labour for the year 2012, the income has to be taken at Rs.7,500/- per - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 month but the Tribunal has taken income at Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased was 36 years as on the date of accident and hence, 40% of income has to be added towards future prospects. Considering the fact that the appellant was housewife, the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation under all conventional heads. Accordingly, prays for allowing the appeal. 5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 with all vehemence submits that deceased being house wife, no income proof has been produced and the Tribunal has taken income at Rs.6,000/- per month for the year 2012, which is more than sufficient. The compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ is Rs.1,50,000/- which is exorbitant, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Rs.40,000/- each should have been taken and Tribunal should have awarded Rs.1,20,000/- under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. The interest awarded by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 Tribunal is at 8% per annum, which is also exorbitant, as such, does not require interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit within the expression ‘just compensation’? 7. My answer is partly in the Affirmative for the following reasons:- It is not in dispute that the accident has taken place in the year 2012 and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of the deceased must have been taken at Rs.7,000/- per month. As the deceased was aged 36 years as on the date of accident, 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Since there are three dependants, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 towards personal expenses. So also the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’ which requires re-consideration. Further, the appellants are entitled for 10% enhancement on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. Accordingly, on re-determination of the loss of dependency, the same works out to be: 7,000 + 40% x 12 x 15 x 2/3 = Rs.11,76,000/- 8. The Tribunal has awarded compensation towards ‘filial consortium’ to the appellants at Rs.1,50,000/- which is in excess. Hence, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded along with 10% + 10% escalation (2 terms of three years each). Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3 + 10% + 10%). 9. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. There shall be an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 escalation of 10% + 10% on the conventional heads for each three years. Taking into consideration of the same, the compensation awarded towards ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’ being Rs.30,000/-, 10%+10% escalation works out to Rs.6,000/- (Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000). The appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. 10. In summary, the total compensation re- determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 11,76,000/- 2. Loss of filial consortium : Rs. 1,44,000/- 3. Loss of Estate : Rs. 18,000/- 4. Funeral expenses : Rs. 18,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 13,56,000/- 11. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.13,56,000/- as against Rs.8,95,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants – - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.4,60,500/- (Rs.13,56,500 – Rs.8,95,500) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 12. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.407/2013, dated 25.11.2014, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Principal Senior Civil Judge at Udupi is modified; iii) The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.4,60,500/- (Rs.13,56,500 – Rs.8,95,500) along with - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40019 MFA No. 5950 of 2015 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization; iv) The enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest supra shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, within six weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization; v) Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the impugned order of the Tribunal. vi) Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith. vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8