- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 6076 OF 2025 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION No. 4 OF 2026 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 6076/2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., ALYSA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, OFFICE No. 1, REAR PORTION, OLD No. 28, NEW No. 23, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU - 25. NOW REP BY ITS THE MANAGER, THE LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., 21/15, THE LANDMARK 4TH FLOOR, NEAR TRINITY METRO, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMESHA S/O. LATE. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 2. PREMAVATHI C.M., W/O. PRASAD, D/O. LATE. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O. CHOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. NOW R/O. BEGLI HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK. 3. SUDHAKARACHARI, S/O. SRINIVASA CHARI, CHELUR ROAD, BEHIND APMC SHANTHI NAGAR, WARD No. 16, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; V/O DATED 10.03.2026 NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 242/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, KOLAR AND ETC., IN MFA.CROB No. 4/2026 BETWEEN: 1. RAMESHA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. PREMAVATHI C.M., W/O PRASAD, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NOW BOTH ARE R/O BEGLI HOSAHALLI VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 KOLAR TALUK, OLAR DISTRICT - 563 126. AND ALSO BOTH ARE R/O CHOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. K VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUDHAKARACHARI, S/O SRINIVASACHARI, MAJOR, CHELUR ROAD, BEHIND APMC SHANTHINAGAR, WARD No.16, CHINTHAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALYSA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, OFFICE NO.1 REAR PORTION, OLD No.28 NEW No.23, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF SECTION 173 OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C.No.242/2023 DATED 18-03-2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT KOLAR AND ETC., THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri.B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the insurer and Sri.K. Vishwanatha, learned counsel for the claimants. 2. The appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the common judgment and award dated 18.03.2025 passed in MVC No.242/2023 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kolar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2.1 The parties are referred to as per their ranks as they stand before the Tribunal for convenience. 3. The appeal is preferred by the insurer and the cross- objection is filed by the claimants, disputing the quantum of compensation. The petitioners filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Sri Naveen Reddy C.M. on 01.07.2023 in a motor vehicle accident involving a Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-67-1387 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’). It is stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 driver of the offending vehicle. It is further pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from business. 3.1 Upon service of notice, respondent No.2 filed objections denying the averments in the claim petition; however, it admitted the subsistence of the policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1, though represented by counsel, did not file any objections. 3.2 The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P18. The respondents neither adduced any evidence nor marked any documents. 3.3 The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month, applied a multiplier of 17, and took the age of the deceased as 28 years. Considering that the deceased was a bachelor, 50% was deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal also awarded compensation under conventional heads. In total, the Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs.21,30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 4. Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, submits that in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the monthly income at Rs.20,000/-. It is contended that there is no basis for such assessment. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under other heads is on the higher side. 5. Sri K. Vishwanatha, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, submits that the petitioners have produced APMC bills as per Ex.P9 and that the assessment of income at Rs.20,000/- per month is based on the said document. It is contended that the assessment of monthly income is founded on proved evidence and, therefore, warrants no interference. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding future prospects. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head of consortium. It is submitted that the compensation awarded under other heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 7. The date of the accident, the involvement of the vehicle, the subsistence of the insurance policy, the liability of the insurer, the age of the deceased, and the applicable multiplier are not in dispute. The insurer disputes the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. 7.1 The Tribunal has relied upon Ex.P9, namely the APMC bills. The petitioners have not examined the author of Ex.P9. Further, Ex.P9 does not disclose the details of the agricultural produce supplied to the APMC. It is also not a bill issued by the APMC, but is issued by the proprietor of R.K.S. Traders. In the absence of examination of the author of Ex.P9, the same cannot be accepted as proof of income. No other document has been produced in support of the claimed income. 7.2 In the absence of any proof of income, the monthly income is required to be assessed notionally. The accident is of the year 2023, and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.16,000/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per month. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 7.3 The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of future prospects. Considering that the deceased was aged 28 years and was not in permanent employment, 40% is to be added towards future prospects in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The deceased was a bachelor; hence, a deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses is justified. Accordingly, the compensation is re-assessed asunder, Rs.16,000 + (40% of 16,000) = Rs.22,400/- Rs.22,400 X 12 = Rs.2,68,800/- Rs.2,68,800 – (50% of 2,68,800) = Rs.1,34,400/- Rs.1,34,400 X 17 = Rs.22,84,800/- 7.4 In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, each of the claimants is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. The total compensation is tabulated as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 Sl. No. Particulars Compensation by Tribunal in Rs. Compensation by this court in Rs. 1. Towards funeral expenses, obsequies and transportation charges. 50,000/- 15,000/- 2. Towards loss of dependency 20,40,000/- 22,84,800/- Towards loss of estate __ 15,000/- 3. Towards loss of love and affection/consortium 40,000/- 80,000/- (40,000X2) TOTAL 21,30,000/- 23,94,800/- Enhanced Compensation in Rs. 2,64,800/- 8. In the light of the above observations and the above findings, the following: O R D E R (i) The appeal and cross objections are partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC No.242/2023 is modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled to sum of Rs.23,94,880/- as compensation as against Rs.21,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17116-DB MFA No. 6076 of 2025 C/W MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2026 (iv) All other conditions regarding investment and apportionment and rate of interest is maintained. (v) Draw modified decree accordingly. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4