- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26579 MFA No. 5125 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5125 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. RAVANAMMA, W/O LATE K.V. GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. VISHVESHWARAPPA S/O LATE K.V. GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3. MANJULA D/O LATE K.V. GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KOMMEPALLI VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SWATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R.V. RAMALINGAREDDY, S/O R K VEMAREDDY AGED MAJOR R/AT RAGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26579 MFA No. 5125 of 2024 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUGUNA NURSING HOME BUILDING, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, KOLAR, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. KRISHNAVENI W/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. HARSHAVARDHANA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 5. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER SMT. KRISHNAVENI, RESPODENT NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT KOMMEPALLI VILLAGE, CHIKALANERPU HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 4.6.25, NOTICE TO R1; R3 TO R5 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 10/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KOLAR, MEMBER, MACT, KOLAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26579 MFA No. 5125 of 2024 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Miss Swathi who represents Sri. Pavana Chandra Shetty.H, learned counsel on record for the appellants as well as Sri.Manjula N Tejaswi learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Projecting that the amount that is awarded as compensation is inadequate the present appeal is filed by the claimants in M.V.C. No.10/2021 which stood pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar and was disposed of through order dated 25.03.2024. 3. When learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount awarded as compensation is grossly low, Smt. Manjula N Tejaswi learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the tribunal awarded exorbitant sum as compensation and therefore the award needs no interference. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26579 MFA No. 5125 of 2024 4. The impugned order reveals that a sum of Rs.23,17,500/- is awarded as compensation distributable to the wife, two major sons, daughter-in-law and two grand children of the deceased K.V.Gopalakrishnappa (hereinafter be referred to as the deceased for brevity). The tribunal having taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/-, adding 25% as future prospects, deducting 1/4th of the same towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive and applying the appropriate multiplier '13' came to a conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.20,47,500/- under the head loss of dependency. The tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- under the head loss of filial consortium, Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- under the head conveyance charges. In total the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,17,500/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal did not add 10% of earnings as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Likewise, the tribunal did - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26579 MFA No. 5125 of 2024 not award compensation under the head funeral expenses. However, as rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the sum that is awarded as compensation in total is highly justifiable. Even on such addition and proper calculation, the total sum awarded will not get enhanced. 6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appeal lacks merits. Resultantly, the appeal stands Dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55 CT: BHK