- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25737 MFA No. 5295 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5295 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SEETHA POOJARTHI W/O LATE NARAYANA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT AVADESALU MANE, BALKURU VILLAGE & POST KUNDAPURA TALUK- 576 217. 2. SMT.VANAJA POOJARTHI D/O LATE NARAYANA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT AVADESALU MANE, BALKURU VILLAGE & POST KUNDAPURA TALUK- 576 217. 3. SMT.SAKU POOJARTHI D/O LATE NARAYANA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT AVADESALU MANE, BALKURU VILLAGE & POST KUNDAPURA TALUK- 576 217. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VRUSHAB BHANDARY Y.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. V.S. ARAVINDA S/O SHRINIVASA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NAGARAKODI KALWADI ABIGAL VILLAGE & POST, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25737 MFA No. 5295 of 2014 HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT- 577 002. 2. MR.VASANTH RAO S/O LATE Y.VASUDEV RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O LAXMI NILAYA CHITRAPADY VILLAGE, SALIGRAMA POST UDUPI TQ & DIST.- 576 201. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE:RELIANCE CENTRE 19 WALCHAND, HARICHAND MARG BELLARD ESTATE MUMBAI-400 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2015, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.125/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25737 MFA No. 5295 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Kundapura (for short 'the Tribunal) in MVC.No.125/2013 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 29.11.2012, at around 6.30 p.m., the deceased Narayana Poojary was traveling from Sasthana towards Basrur Murkal of Kundapura side, as a passenger, in a bus bearing registration KA-20C 3857. The driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle before the deceased could alight from the bus, as a result, the deceased Narayana Poojary fell from the bus and sustained injuries and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants are his wife and children. They contended that deceased was aged about 68 years and was working as a coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants are dependent upon his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25737 MFA No. 5295 of 2014 4. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner, respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Before the Tribunal respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 appeared and denied the contentions of the claim petition, denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove their case examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. Respondent have not led any evidence. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 68 years, and applied multiplier ‘5’ and income as Rs.4,500/- per month, and assessed the compensation. The claimants being dissatisfied by the said award preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellants and respondent No.2 and perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25737 MFA No. 5295 of 2014 8. The accident in question and death of Narayapnappa in the said accident is not disputed, therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. 9. Claimants disputed quantum of compensation. There is no dispute regarding age of deceased. Claimants contended that income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. According to the contentions of the claimants, he was earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants have not produced any materials to prove it. Considering the chart of notional income prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. Undisputedly, the multiplier applicable is ‘5’ as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC1 . 10. The learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that claimant No.1 is widow and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are married daughters. Therefore, only one dependant was left behind him i.e. wife. Therefore, 50% of the income may be 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25737 MFA No. 5295 of 2014 deducted towards personal expenses. He supported the findings given by the Tribunal in this regard and prayed to upheld the same. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that deceased was married, claimant Nos.2 and 3 were also residing with deceased and were dependant upon his earnings. The three dependants and widow have filed the claim petition. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma referred supra, and also National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors2, personal expenses should be taken as 1/3rd and not 50%. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is tenable. In the judgment relied by learned counsel for respondent No.2, mother and daughter of the deceased had filed a claim petition for compensation in that case. Considering those facts, Hon’ble Apex Court, deducted 50% towards personal expenses. In the present case, the facts are different. The wife and daughters have filed claim petition. Therefore, 1/3rd needs to be deducted 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25737 MFA No. 5295 of 2014 towards personal expenses. Therefore, loss of dependency is recalculated as Rs.6,000 x 12 x 5 x 2/3= 2,40,000/- 12. The compensation under conventional heads, will be awarded in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Pranay sethi referred supra. 13. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to following amount of compensation: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 2,40,000 2. Medical expenses 24,737 3. Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000x3) 1,20,000 4. Loss of estate 15,000 5. Funeral expenses 15,000 Total Rs.4,14,737 Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,04,740 Enhanced amount Rounded off Rs.2,09,997 Rs.2,10,000/- 14. Undisputedly, respondents are liable to pay the said amount of compensation. They are liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25737 MFA No. 5295 of 2014 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapura in MVC.No.125/2013 is modified. iii. The claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. iv. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within period of six weeks from the date of award. v. Apportionment, release and deposit is as ordered by the Tribunal. Send back the trial Court records to the Tribunal along with the copy of the judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10