- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 228 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUGUNA NURSING HOME COMPLEX, ANTHARANGANGE ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, T. N. ADISESH, REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE VENKATESHAPPA @ VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. SMT. SHILPA. V D/O. LATE VENKATESHAPPA @ VENKATESH, MAJOR, Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GUNJURU VILLAGE, TUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 087. 3. M. KUMAR S/O. LATE MUDDUVEERAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 446/6, MARALUBAGILU, HARIJANA COLONY, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VASANTHA LAKSHMI.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UMESH M.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.21, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 74/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT MEMBER, DODDABALLAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,65,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellate being the Divisional Manager-United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Deputy Manager, has filed this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.07.2019 passed in MVC.No.74/2018 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Member at Doddaballapura. 2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience. 3. The appellant has filed this appeal questioning the very quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the learned tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-p.m., as he was a Diploma Degree Holder. He submits that, Ex.P26 was produced by the claimants showing his income at Rs.7,000/- p.m., and odd. He further submits that, petitioner No.2 by name Smt.Shilpa.V, is the sister of the deceased but married - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 long back, therefore she cannot be the defendant on the deceased income. He further submits that, petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased and she was the only person depending as per the petition averments. Therefore, deduction of 1/3rd by the tribunal, towards the personal expenses of the deceased is improper and incorrect. There shall be deduction of 1/2th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as he was having only one defendant. Further, he submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. There is no proper consideration of the contentions taken by the insurance company with regard to the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal. He submits that, as the compensation is awarded on the higher side has to be reduced to a considerable extent. 4. The appellant do not dispute with regard to the liability, which has attained finality as per the findings of the tribunal, which is impugned in this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that, petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased. Both were depending upon the deceased. Therefore, whatever the findings of the tribunal with regard to the deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is just and proper. He further submits that, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the petitioners towards loss of consortium, so also have not awarded further compensation under other heads. Therefore, he justifies the compensation awarded by the tribunal and prays to dismiss this appeal. 6. Evidently, deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident, he was a Diploma Engineer. To prove the said facts, the petitioners have produced a certificate issued by the Green Solutions Computer Centre at Ex.P26. It shows that, deceased was qualified as a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) having scored A+ (84.50%). Further, his marks card is also produced by the petitioners - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 before the Tribunal which are marked in evidence. While, assessing the compensation towards loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- p.m., as the deceased was a Diploma Engineer, but the claimants have failed to produce the proof of income, so the Court has taken the notional income. Admittedly, deceased was a Diploma Engineer and a skilled person. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in arriving at Rs.12,000/- as monthly notional income of the deceased. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Ex.P6, marked in this case. Its photocopy is available in the file. It shows that, for the month of October 2016, the gross salary of the deceased was shown as Rs.8,550/-. As per the petition averments, the said accident has taken place on 06.03.2018. In view of the qualification of the deceased as a Diploma in Computer Appliances, as rightly held by the tribunal, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.12,000/- p.m. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, as per the inquest report marked in this case at Ex.P3, petitioner No.1 herself has given a statement that, her daughter by name Shilpa.V was married to one Lakshmi Narayana of Vijaypura that means, when petitioner No.2 is married and residing in her matrimonial home. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the appellant, the question of she being considered as a dependent on the deceased, would not arise at all. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deep Shikha and Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1090 has held that, "unless financial dependency is proved by the married daughter, she is not entitled for the compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' under Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, in this case, as petitioner No.2 is married hence, she is not entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of dependency". Therefore, the tribunal has committed an error in considering petitioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 No.2 as dependent on the deceased. Then petitioner No.1 being the mother of the deceased was the only dependant. As the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.12,000/- p.m. as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased as he was in a private employment. Then the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,800/- (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.4,800/-). As the petitioner No.1 is only a sole dependent of the deceased and as he was unmarried/bachelor at the time of accident, therefore, 50% from the total income is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It comes to Rs.8,400/- . Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8,400/- p.m. (Rs.16,800/- - Rs.8,400/-). It is used to be multiplied with '12' to calculate annually. As the deceased was aged 24 years, the proper multiplier as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 that is applicable is '18'. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.8,400x12monthsx18). But the Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.21,60,000/- which is on higher side, without considering the dependency. Therefore, loss of dependency so arrived at by the tribunal is reduced to Rs.18,14,400/-. 9. Petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased. Petitioner No.1 has lost her son, who was at young age of 24 years and petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased, who has lost her only brother. Therefore, towards loss of consortium some amount is to be awarded with escalation of 10%. As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi supra the loss of consortium is assessed at Rs.40,000/- + escalation of 10%, i.e., Rs.44,000/- each of the petitioners, that means, Rs.88,000/-. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 10. The tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards 'love and affection' as it is covered under the loss of consortium. Therefore, there is no need not to award any further compensation towards loss of 'love and affection'. 11. The tribunal has awarded 'loss of estate' to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and 'transportation and funeral' at Rs.25,000/- which are on higher side. 12. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi Supra, the petitioners are entitled for compensation towards 'loss of estate' at Rs.16,500/- [Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1,500/- (10% escalation)]. So far as the 'transportation and funeral expenses' concerned, they are entitled for Rs.16,500/- [Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1,500/- (10% escalation)]. 13. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation as per the following heads: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 1 Loss of dependency to petitioner No.1 Rs.18,14,400/- 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000x2) Rs.88,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- 4 Transportation and Funeral Rs.16,500/- TOTAL Rs.19,35,400/- Thus the claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,35,400/- rounded off to Rs.19,35,000/-. Thereby, there shall be reduction of compensation of Rs.3,29,600/-(Rs.19,35,400/- - Rs.22,65,000/-). 14. So far as liability is concerned, the appellant admits the validity of the insurance policy with regard to the offending bus on the date of accident. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. The primary liability is on respondent No.1 to pay the compensation. However, under law of indemnity, respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount. Accordingly, it is held that, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 Rs.19,35,400/- together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Accordingly the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.74/2018 dated 20.07.2019 passed by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge & MACT Member at Doddaballapura is hereby modified. (iii) Appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.19,35,400/- together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation as against Rs.22,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby there would be reduction of compensation of Rs.3,29,600/-. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation within six - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29537 MFA No. 228 of 2020 weeks from the date of this judgment before the tribunal. (v) With regard to the deposit and release of the amount, the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. (vi) There shall be modified award accordingly. (vii) Registry is directed to transfer the statutory deposit before the tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14