- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36446 MFA No. 4784 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4784 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT K KANAKALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O LATE BETTAIAH 2. K B DARSHINI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O LATE BETTAIAH 3. K B YASHWANTHGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O LATE BETTAIAH 4. SMT NINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O LATE BETTAIAH ALL ARE RESIDING AT KACHIGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. P BALASUBBA SHETTY Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36446 MFA No. 4784 of 2024 AND SON PARTNER D NO 1-1106 BRIGADE GARDENIA RBI LAYOUT, J P NAGARA 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2NDFLOOR, AP AND BEVI JAMBU KESHAVA ARACADE NO 69, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.31.01.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1218/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36446 MFA No. 4784 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Raja.L learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy who represents Sri. B.Pradeep learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. At request of both the learned counsel the matter is taken up for a final hearing and disposal 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya in M.V.C. No.1218/2019 dated 31.01.2023. This is a claimants appeal. 3. The wife, the major children and the mother of the deceased Bettaiah filed a petition claiming compensation of ₹60,00,000/- in total. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of ₹17,14,600/- as compensation. Projecting that the sum thus awarded is grossly low the present appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are only aggrieved by non adding of 20% of the earnings as future prospects. Learned counsel who - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36446 MFA No. 4784 of 2024 represents respondent No.2 submits that the deceased Bettaiah was aged about 54 years by the date of accident and no proof is produced by the appellants with regard to the occupation of the deceased and therefore the tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as ₹14,000/- per month and added 10% towards future prospects which is justifiable. 5. As per the version of the appellants the deceased Bettaiah as an agriculturist and by doing milk vending business was earning ₹20,000/- per month. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 the appellants failed to produce any substantive proof either with regard to the occupation or the earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident. The tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as ₹14,000/- per month and the appellants have no grievance in that regard as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants. Also it is not in dispute that the deceased Bettaiah was aged around 54 years by the date of accident. As per the decision of the Honb'e Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. -vs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36446 MFA No. 4784 of 2024 Pranay Sethi case, 10% of the earnings are required to be added for the persons who are between the age of 50 to 60 years in case they are self employed. Basing upon the said decision the tribunal has rightly added 10% towards future prospects. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants fails to state on what basis 20% of the earnings can be added towards future prospects. The award of the tribunal is based on sound reasons and established principles of law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the decision of tribunal which is valid in all aspects. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33