- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6955 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI C R WIFE OF LATE SRI C.N. RAMAMOHAN, AGE: 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.137, "ASHIRVADA" 3RD CROSS, SEVANTIGE ROAD, GARDEN VILLAS, MARUTI NAGAR, NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-56. PERMANENT ADDRESS: C-2, LIC OFFICERS QUARTERS, M.H.ROAD, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, 76, BADAGABETTU, UDUPI-576101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI C. SADASHIVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE AT GUDIYATTAM, 12, KATPADI ROAD, GUDIYATTAM, VELLORE, TAMIL NADU-632602. Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 2. SRI A. RANGANATHAN AGE: MAJOR, NO.18-306, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. SRI J. SARAVAN KUMAR SON OF JAGANMOHAN, AGE: 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1/141/B, PILLAIYAAR STREET, MULLAMDRAM VILLAGE, ARANI TALUK, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. AND ALSO AT: NO.15-2160, VISHNUPRIYA COMPLEX, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.07.2023, NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5168/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, 26TH ACMM, (SCCH-09), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 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) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 02.02.2015 passed in MVC No.5168 of 2012 on the file of the learned Small Causes Judge and XXVI ACCM, Bengaluru, whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2012 at about 9.15 p.m. when the deceased Shwetha was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 returning home on her TVS WEGO bearing Registration No. KA-53-U-697 near Someshwara Temple, Old Madras Road, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, a lorry bearing Registration No. AP-02-T-7789 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. She was declared dead in the hospital. Hence, the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The claimant is the mother of the deceased Shwetha. The deceased was working as Accounts Executive in Siemens Limited, Bengaluru and was getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. 5. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record at Exs.P1 to P18 and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, partly allowed the claim petition awarding a total compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Sri C. Sadashiva, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal, without properly considering the evidence on record, wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,82,800/- per annum. In fact, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.50,000/- per month. Further, the tribunal has wrongly considered the age of the claimant, who is the mother of the deceased, as 60 years and wrongly applied the multiplier of 9 for assessing the loss of dependency. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under each head, which does not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 call for interference at the hands of this Court, except the future prospects granted by the tribunal. In fact, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was under private employment and therefore, the future prospects applicable would be 40% in view of the ratio laid down in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hence, it has to be reduced to 40% from 50%. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the original records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 9. In the instant appeal, respondent No.1-Insurance Company has not disputed the accident in question, the cause of death of the deceased and the liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,82,800/- considering the basic salary of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. As per the material available on record, the deceased was drawing basic salary of Rs.20,000/-, House Rent Allowance of Rs.10,000/- and Supplementary Allowance of Rs.13,000/- per month. So, the deceased Shwetha was drawing salary of Rs. 43,000/- per month. After deducting the income tax, her salary was Rs.4,82,800/- per annum. Since the deceased was in private employment, the future prospects has to be added to her income at 40% in view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 11. The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident. Respondent No.1 has not disputed this aspect. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS. Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 17. 12. The deceased Shwetha died leaving behind her mother. Since the deceased died unmarried, the appropriate deduction towards her personal expenses would be 50% considering the fact that there was only one dependent i.e., the mother of the deceased. 13. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH AND OTHERS Vs RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, has wrongly considered the future prospects at 50% considering the age of the mother of the deceased at 60 years. Since the deceased was working in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 private company and she was below the age of 40 years, the claimant is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of dependency is as under: 4,82,800+1,93,120/-(40% future prospects)x17x 50%=22,98,128 14. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding fair compensation under the conventional heads. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED Vs. NANU RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 and Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the claimant is entitled for RS. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses with 10% interest for every three years. 15. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 22,98,128/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 23,68,128/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 16,90,000/- ENHANCED COMPENSATION Rs. 6,78,128/- 16. 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 claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 23,68,128/- as against Rs.16,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation of Rs. 6,78,128/- from the date of filing of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB MFA No. 6955 of 2015 the claim petition till the date of its realization. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 110 days in filing this appeal. iii. Respondent No.1-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv. Draw modified award accordingly. v. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE BKV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50