- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.729 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. T.D. RUDRAPPA S/O. LATE DEVENDRAPPA AGED 54 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST. 2. SMT. SHIVALEEL W/O. T.D. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK. 3. KUM. SANGEETHA D/O. T.D. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 4. KUM. MAMATHA D/O. T.D. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS STUDENT ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KADAJJI VILLAGE AND POST DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HIREMATHAD MAHASHAIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIDYADHARA A.V. S/O. VEERANNA Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS DRIVER RESIDENT OF #3993/23 HOUSING BOARD COLONY MCC 'B' BLOCK, VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577 004. 2. SMT. B.K. PRABHAVATHI W/O. SURESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDENT OF #06 ADITHYA NEXT, 5TH MAIN 13TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-566 003. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, A.M. ARCADE OPP. VIDYARTHI BHAVAN C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 5-3-2021, NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10-5-2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.528 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-IV, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 10.05.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.528/2017 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IV, Davanagere, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.13,80,500/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The Tribunal directed respondent No.3/Insurance company to pay entire compensation to the claimants. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the claimants’ case before the Tribunal are as under: On 03.02.2017 at 2.00 a.m., deceased Vinay and inmates of car had been to Thirthahalli, at that time, respondent No.1 drove the car bearing registration No.KA-04-MK-9602, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused accident near Thyranduru plantation cross. Due to the said impact, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 deceased Vinay sustained severe injuries and was taken to Manipal hospital and later, admitted to Sparsha Hospital, Bengaluru, where he succumbed to the injuries on 28.02.2017. Hence, the claimants being dependents of the deceased had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation. Prior to the accident, the deceased was aged about 24 years, he was a Diploma Civil Engineer and earning a sum of Rs.10 lakh per annum. 4. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record as per Exs.P1 to P21 and oral evidence of PW1, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.13,80,500/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants are in appeal. 5. Sri. M.R. Hiremathad, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants strenuously contended that the Tribunal without considering the material available on record, has wrongly considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month and the same requires to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 reconsidered. Further, the Tribunal has not granted fair and reasonable compensation on the conventional heads. The Tribunal also awarded lesser compensation towards medical expenses, food, nourishment, conveyance, attendance charges etc. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, Sri Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3-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 heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including original records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal: i) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 8. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the accident, cause of death and liability to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company has disputed the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. 9. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The claimants have contended that the deceased was earning Rs.10 lakhs per annum, as he was a Diploma Civil Engineer and also running a provision store and doing Agricultural work. To substantiate such contention, the claimants have not placed any material before the Court to prove the income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2017. No documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as well as the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, the notional income of the deceased is to be assessed at Rs.11,000/- p.m. Page No.6 Retyped and Replaced Vide Court Order dated 17/04/2026 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 10. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident. The respondents have not disputed this aspect. As per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is '18'. 11. Deceased Vinay died bachelor, leaving behind his father, mother and two unmarried sisters, therefore, appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 50% in view of the Sarla Verma's case. 12. As per the dictum laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospectus. The Tribunal considering the above ratio, has rightly considered the future prospects at 40% which is in accordance with law. Thus, the Loss of dependency is worked as under: Rs.11,000/- + 40% (Rs.3,200) = 15,400/-50% = Rs.7,700/- Rs.7,700/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.16,63,200/- Page No.7 Retyped and Replaced Vide Court Order dated 17/04/2026 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively which is fair and reasonable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,86,500/- towards medical expenses which is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for in that regard. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi case supra, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. The accident is of the year 2017, hence, they are entitled for escalation at 10% once in three years. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to modified compensation as under: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 16,63,200/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40000x4+20%) 1,92,000/- Loss of estate 18,000/- Funeral expenses 18,000/- Medical expenses 4,86,500/- Total 23,77,700/- Page No.8 Retyped and Replaced Vide Court Order dated 17/04/2026 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 14. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.23,77,700/- as against Rs.13,80,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award dated 10.05.2018 passed in MVC No.528 of 2017 is modified to an extent that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.9,97,200/- in addition to Rs.13,80,500/- which has been awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. d) Respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Page No.9 Retyped and Replaced Vide Court Order dated 17/04/2026 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29553-DB MFA No. 729 of 2020 e) Apportionment, disbursement and deposit shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. f) Draw award accordingly. g) Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with Tribunal records, forthwith. h) No order as to cost j) Pending I.A's, if any, stands disposed of, as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41