- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH 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.9947 OF 2018(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. OMKARAPPA S.L., S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 2. DIVAKARA S.L., S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. SHILAVATHI S, D/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ALL ARE R/O HITTALA VILLAGE (POST) SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRIT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, AND SRI. G.S.SHIVAKUMR SWAMY, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. LAKSHMIKANTHAN P., S/O PANEER SELVAM AGE: MAJOR Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 R/AT NO.41/1, RAJA STREET KUMARANATHAPURAM TIRUPUR NORTH S.O., COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641602 (RC OWNER OF SCORPIO VEHICLE BEARING REG NO.TN-39/AW-1999. 2. CHOLAMANDALAM M.S., GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMINTED NO.135/5, 2ND FLOOR,15TH CROSS J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BENGALURU – 78. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.03.2024, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.61/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT-15, SHIKARIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 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 claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21-9-2017 passed in M.V.C. No.61 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT-15, Shikaripura, (for short ‘Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: On 08-05-2014 at about 11.00 P.M., Nagamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased) and others left Hittla Village in a hired bus bearing Registration No.KA-45/9099 to Tamil Nadu Trip. On 11.05.2014 at about 9.15 P.M., the said bus reached Virudhunagar-Sattur (NH-7) Road, Ettunaikenpatti Village, opposite to Rajakani Tea Shop, in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 order to prepare food, the bus was stationed. At that time, the deceased, by observing the vehicle movements was crossing the said road to attend nature’s call. All of a sudden, the driver of Scorpio car bearing Registration No.TN-39/AW- 1999 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against deceased and caused the accident. Due to the impact, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to nearby private hospital, after examining her, the Doctor declared that she is ‘dead’. The petitioners have spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for shifting the dead body to their residence, funeral and obsequies ceremonies. It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning her livelihood as a ‘Flower vendor’ and was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to her death, the petitioners have lost their dependency and petitioners being unmarried sons and daughter have lost love and affection from their mother. The petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest under different heads. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 4. Heard Sri S.V. Prakash and Sri G.S. Shivakumar Swamy, learned counsels for the appellants-claimants, Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has contended that Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which is on the lower side. It is contended that the deceased was working as ‘Flower Merchant’ and was also an ‘Agriculturist’ and her income was more than Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, he prays to enhance the compensation. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under each of the heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, as there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 11-05-2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the Scorpio car, bearing Registration No.TN-39/AW-1999, by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises 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. In the instant case, the insurance company has not disputed the accident, cause of death of the deceased and the liability of the insurance company to make the payment. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which is very meagre. The accident of the year 2014 and no documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 State Legal Services Authority, the notional income would be considered at Rs.8,500/- per month. However, the claimants have taken the contention that prior to death of the deceased, her income was Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is restricted to Rs.8,000/- per month. 9. The deceased was aged 66 years at the time of the accident. Hence, she is not entitled for any future prospects. 10. The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 is '5'. 11. There are three dependents, as such 1/3rd of income of the deceased has to be deducted towards her personal expenses i.e., (Rs.8,000 x 12) Rs.96,000 X 1/3 = Rs.32,000/-. After deduction, the amount to be contributed to her family would be Rs.64,000/- (96,000/- minus 32,000/-). Considering the age of the deceased, ‘5’ multiplier would be applicable. Thus, the compensation payable under - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 the head of ‘loss of dependency’ would be (8,000 X 12 X 5 X 1/3) Rs.3,20,000/-. 12. The Tribunal has committed an error by not awarding compensation under ‘conventional heads’. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3), Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for modified compensation as under: HEADS Rs. Loss of dependency 3,20,000.00 Loss of Consortium (40,000 x 3) 1,20,000.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 TOTAL 4,70,000.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 3,25,000.00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 1,45,000.00 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- as against Rs.3,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. 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.4,70,000/- as against Rs.3,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation, excluding interest for delayed period of 351 days in filing the appeal. iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation together with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31546-DB MFA No. 9947 of 2018 iv. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. v. Draw the modified award accordingly. vi. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13