- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101747 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. KESHAV MANJAYYA NAIK S/O. MANJU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O: BUTANA JADDI, ANANTWADI, MANKI VILLAGE, TQ: HONAVAR. 2. VENKAMMA KOM KESHAV NAIK, W/O. KESHAV NAIK, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O: BUTANA JADDI, ANANTWADI, MANKI VILLAGE, TQ: HONNAVAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUHAS K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKRAPPA RUDRAPPA MYAGERI, AGE: MAJOR, R.M. LOHIA NAGAR, H.NO.457, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HUBLI DO (670700), II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-29, TQ: BHATKAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COURT AND THE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. AT: HONAVAR IN M.V.C.T 16/2012. DATED 28-09-2013. PASSED BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD AND FASTING THE LIABILITY ON THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri.Suhas, who appears before this Court physically and represents Sri.A. S. Patil, learned counsel on record for the appellants. Also heard Sri.S.V.Yaji, learned counsel for respondent No.2, who appears through Video Conference. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Honavar in MVC No.16/2012 dated 28.09.2013. This is a claimants’ appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 3. The death of their son by name Girish Naik (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the deceased’ for brevity) in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2011 drove the appellants to file a claim petition as borne by the record. The claim is for Rs.10,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of Rs.4,83,000/- as compensation. The version of the appellants is that they are entitled for a higher sum. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was working in a Finance Company and was earning substantial sum by the date of accident. He died at the age of 24. The appellants, being the parents of the deceased, were solely depending upon the earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident. The death of the deceased resulted in loss of their livelihood. Though sufficient evidence was produced to establish the occupation and earnings of the deceased, yet the Tribunal having - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 applied wrong multiplier and without adding future prospects, awarded very meagre sum as compensation and therefore the appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal at para 16 of the impugned order, gave a clear finding with regard to earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident. Learned counsel submits that, considering the age of the deceased, the appeal may be disposed of. 6. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged around 24 years by the date of accident. Thus the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 is 18. However, considering the age of the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 applied multiplier 9. However, the age of the deceased is required to be taken into consideration and therefore the multiplier to be applied is 18. 7. Coming to the occupation and earnings of the deceased, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants succeeded in establishing that the deceased was working at Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd., Honavar. However, though the version of the appellants is that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, the Tribunal having discussed the reliability of the evidence produced in that regard at length, came to a conclusion that the earnings of the deceased can be considered as Rs.6,728/- per month, which requires no interference. 8. The deceased died as a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of the earnings of the deceased is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive. Thus, taking the earnings of the deceased as Rs.6,728/- per month, adding 40% towards future prospects, as the deceased was aged around 24 years by the date of accident, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs Pranay Sethi & ors.2 deducting 50% of the earnings towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive and applying appropriate multiplier 18, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive towards ‘loss of dependency’ is as under: Monthly income Rs.6,728.00 Annual income Rs.80,736.00 on adding 40% towards future prospects Rs.1,13,030.40 on deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses Rs.56,515.20 loss of dependency, on applying appropriate multiplier 18 Rs.10,17,273.60 Rounded to Rs.10,17,274.00 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 9. Thus the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,17,274/- towards ‘loss of dependency’. Also, the appellants are entitled to Rs.63,948/- towards ‘medical expenses’ which they incurred, Rs.10,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’. 10. Thus, the total sum which the appellants are entitled to receive is as under: Head of Compensation Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 10,17,274.00 Medical expenses 63,948.00 Funeral expenses 10,000.00 Loss of estate 10,000.00 Loss of consortium 40,000.00 Total 11,41,222.00 11. The above discussion makes it clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.11,41,222/- as compensation. However, the claim of the appellants is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 for Rs.10,00,000/-. The position of law is well established that, though the claim is for lesser amount, in case the Court comes to a conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a higher sum, they are entitled to receive the said sum. This position is highlighted and reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors3. 12. Thus the appeal is disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Honavar through orders in MVC No.16/2012 dated 28.09.2013 is enhanced from Rs.4,83,000/- to Rs.11,41,222/-. 3 AIR 2003 SC 674 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15259 MFA No. 101747 of 2014 iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. Out of the enhanced sum, the 1st appellant is entitled to 40% and the 2nd appellant is entitled to 60%. vi. Appellants No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares immediately on deposit, subject to payment of deficit court fee. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15