- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3117 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MUBEENA BEE W/O. ABDUL RAZAQ, NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. ABDUL RAZAQ S/O. MOHAMED HUSSAIN, NOW AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. ASIYA BEE D/O. ABDUL RAZAQ, NOW AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT LAYA KANAKENAHALLI, YENNAGERE POST, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.RANGEGOWDA.N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: KRISHNAPPA DEAD BY LRS 1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE. KRISHNAPPA, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 NO. 58, ARALASANDRA, MODALAKOTE POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 2. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O. BASIYA BHOVI, AGED MAJOR, R/AT HONNENAHALLI, NARUGNAHALLI POST, GULUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 25, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O. DATED 13.08.2024, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1133/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), 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: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation arising out of judgment and award in MVC No.1133/2019, dated 10.02.2021 passed by the III Addl. Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18). 2. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, the death of late Mohammed Mujahid Khan S/o Abdul Razaq and liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute, the only dispute is in respect of inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Heard Sri.Rangegowda.N.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Sri.D.Vijaykumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. 4. Sri.Rangegowda.N.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the date of accident is 04.01.2019. As per the chart the income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority (for short ‘KSLSA’) for the year 2019 is Rs.14,000/-. The Tribunal has erred in taking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 the income of Rs.9500/- per month. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS1, Rs.40,000/- each under filial consortium is to be awarded to the appellant No.3 being the only sister to the deceased and sought to allow the appeal and modify the judgment by awarding suitable compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.D.Vijayakumar, appearing for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company with all vehemence submitted that in the absence of income proof, the Tribunal has taken appropriate income at the rate of Rs.9,500/- per month and added 40% future prospects and awarded proper compensation on head of ‘loss of dependency’ so also under all other heads including the medical expenses, as the deceased survived for four days after the accident. In that view of the matter, the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, sought for dismissal the appeal. 1 2018 ACJ 2782 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as the trial Court records, the only point which would arise for consideration is: "Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is befit in the expression of just compensation. If not, whether there is any interference required at the hands of this court? 7. My answer to the above point for consideration is 'partly in affirmative' for the following reasons: Admittedly, the accident has occurred in the year 2019. As per the chart prepared by ‘KSLSA’ the income is Rs.14,000/- p.m. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in taking the income at Rs.9,500/- per month and the same requires consideration. Hence, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 18 years and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER2, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘18’. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI3, 40% of the income is to be added towards ‘loss of future prospects’. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘Loss Of Dependency’ is recalculated and quantified as follows: (Rs.14,000 + 40%) x 12 x 18 x 50/100 = Rs.21,16,800/-. 8. Towards ‘LOSS OF ESTATE’ at Rs.15,000/-, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. 9. Towards ‘FUNERAL EXPENSES AND OBSEQUIES’ and ‘TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY’ at Rs.15,000/-, also does not call for interference and 2 2009 ACJ 1298 3 2017 (16) SCC 680 Page No.6 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 06.02.2026 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 the same is retained. Appellants are also entitled for 10% escalation for each completed 3 years from 2017 as per Pranay Sethi supra. 10. The Tribunal has not considered the other appellant i.e., appellant No.3 for grant of ‘Loss Of Filial Consortium’. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS4, the appellants / claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each. Accordingly, there are three dependants and they are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3) under the said head. 11. Towards ‘Medical Expenses’ Rs.16,200/- is awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. 12. In summary, the total compensation re- determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 4 2018 ACJ 2782 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 13. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.23,13,000/- as against Rs.16,13,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellants - claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,99,400/- (Rs.23,13,000 - 16,13,600) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date petition till realization. Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards loss of dependency 14000 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50 / 100 21,16,800–00 2 Loss of estate 15,000-00 3 Towards Funeral and Obsequies Ceremony Transportation Of Dead Body, expenses 15,000-00 4 Towards loss of Filial Consortium 1,20,000-00 5 Escalation (10% + 10%) 30,000-00 6 Towards medical expenses 16,200-00 Total 23,13,000-00 Page No.8 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 06.02.2026 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1133/2019 is hereby modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.23,13,000/- as against Rs.16,13,600/- and enhanced compensation comes to Rs.6,99,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. iii. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation amount of Rs.6,99,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, before the concerned Tribunal, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv. Apportionment and disbursement is as per the order of the tribunal. Page No.9 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber Order dated 06.02.2026 & 18.02.2026 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28328 MFA No. 3117 of 2021 v. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to cost. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK