- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23162 MFA No. 2797 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 2277 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2797 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2277 OF 2020 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 2797/2018 BETWEEN: 1. CHENNAMMA, W/O. JAVARAEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. CHANDRASHEKARA .T.J, S/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 3. YOGESHA T.J, S/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 4. SHIVANNA T.J, S/O. LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. THE APPELLANT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O. TUBINAKERE VILLAGE AND POST, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRAMOD R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMESH P, S/O. PUTTEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT MADEGOWDANAKOPPALU, DUDDA HOBLI, MODCHAKANAHALLI (P), Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23162 MFA No. 2797 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 2277 of 2020 MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 2951, J.L.B. ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSORE-570 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; V/O DATED 22.11.2022, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1417/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 2277/2020 BETWEEN: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.2951, J .L .B ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 004. REP. BY THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS APPEALS HUB, NO.3, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP. BY ITS MANAGER ..APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR C R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHENNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA. 2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR T J, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA. 3. SRI YOGESHA T J, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23162 MFA No. 2797 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 2277 of 2020 4. SRI SHIVANNA T J, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA. ALL ARE R/AT TUBINAKERE VILLAGE AND POST, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 5. SRI HANUMESH.P, AGED MAJOR, S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA, R/AT MADEGOWDANA KOPPALU VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MADCHAKANAHALLI (P), MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAMOD.R, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1417/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,20,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT MFA No.2797 of 2018 is filed by the claimants and MFA No.2277 of 2020 is filed by the Insurance Company. Both the appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 18.09.2017 passed in MVC No.1417 of 2015 by the M.A.C.T., Mandya (for short ‘the Tribunal’). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23162 MFA No. 2797 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 2277 of 2020 2. Heard Sri.Pramod.R., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Ravishankar.C.R., learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. The claimants are in appeal contending that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as well as in applying the appropriate multiplier. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal on the ground that, as per Ex.R1, the deceased was aged about 66 years, and therefore the appropriate multiplier ought to have been ‘5’. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to deduct the appropriate amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, and that the award of interest at 9% per annum is excessive, which ought to be reduced to 6% per annum. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that one Sri Javaregowda met with a road accident on 01.06.2015. His wife and children have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23162 MFA No. 2797 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 2277 of 2020 seeking compensation of Rs.41,10,000/-. In order to prove the claim, the claimants examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The respondent, by consent, has marked Ex.R1-the insurance policy. 5. The Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.8,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of ‘5’, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,20,000/-. It is to be noticed that the appellant-claimants have failed to substantiate the income of the deceased with cogent evidence before the Tribunal. Hence, the income of the deceased is notionally assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month. 6. In order to prove the age of the deceased, the claimants have produced Ex.P17, the election voter ID card. The said document, as well as the averments made in the claim petition, indicate that the deceased was aged about 63 years. The same is required to be considered and having regard to the age of the deceased as 63 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘7’. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23162 MFA No. 2797 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 2277 of 2020 7. The Tribunal, while answering Issue Nos.2 and 3, has referred to Ex.R1 to conclude that the deceased was aged above 66 years. However, Ex.R1 is only the insurance policy and cannot form the basis for determining the age of the deceased. The Tribunal has also failed to deduct any amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Considering that the claimants are the wife and children, and that they are four in number, deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to be taken as 1/4th of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has further erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum without assigning any special reasons. Therefore, the rate of interest on the compensation amount is required to be modified and fixed at 6% per annum. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the view that the compensation is required to be re-assessed and accordingly same is re-assessed as under; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23162 MFA No. 2797 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 2277 of 2020 9. Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,76,000/- as against Rs.5,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeals are allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1417 of 2015 is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,76,000/- as against Rs.5,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Loss of dependency (Rs.9,000x12x7-1/4) 5,67,000.00 A loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each + 10% escalation i.e., Rs.44,000 x 4) 1,76,000.00 Loss of estate (Rs.15,000+10% escalation) 16,500.00 Towards funeral expenses and transportation dead body (Rs.15,000+10% escalation) 16,500.00 Total 7,76,000.00 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23162 MFA No. 2797 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 2277 of 2020 c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered. f) The amount deposited before this Court shall be transmitted back to the Tribunal. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11