HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5003 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K.S.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. KUM. KALPANA D/O LATE MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, 3. KUM BINDU D/O LATE MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.S 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER SMT GOWRAMMA AS NATURAL GUARDIAN. 4. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, APPELLANT Nos.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT IPPAADI, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR-572 130. 5. SMT. S.H.SHIVAMMA W/O LATE KUMAR, D/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NO.51, 2ND CROSS, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 2 JANATHA COLONY, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU SOUTH, GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY, BENGALURU-560 026. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD.K.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KARIGOWDA S/O JAYARAMU, HEGGADATHIHALLI, KASABA HOBALI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR TP HUB, KRISHI BHAVANA, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY G.S.MARULAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.327/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-14, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgement and Award dated 25.10.2021 passed in M.V.C. No.327/2021, by the learned Member, MACT, XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Award"]. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.24,12,300/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The challenge in the present appeal has been made by the appellants/claimants. 2. The brief facts are that, a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the "M.V. Act"], claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was filed by the appellants/claimants, pursuant to an accident which occurred on 16.09.2020. 2.1. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that 16.09.2020 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased Manjunath was walking on the left side of the road on SH-33, TM HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 4 Road near D Hosalli, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur and at that time, the offending vehicle being a motorbike bearing registration No.KA-06-EZ-2507 driven by the driver of the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Kunigal Public Hospital and later on shifted to NIMHANS Hospital. However, he succumbed to his injuries on 07.12.2020. The post mortem of the deceased was also conducted. It is a case of the appellants/claimants that the deceased was a healthy person and prior to the accident he was a milk vendor cum agriculturist earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. In view of the accident, a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. 2.2. The appellants/claimants produced the wife of the deceased as PW-1 and marked 21 documents as Ex.P1 to P21. The respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. Though respondent No.2/Insurance Company contested the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 5 matter, there was no oral or documentary evidence produced by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that Manjunath S/o Late Shivanna died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 16-09-2020 at about 11.00 a.m., SH-33, T M road near Veerabhadra swamy temple road, D.Hosahalli, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur, arising due to rash and negligent riding of rider of motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-06-EZ-2507? 3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 4. What Order or Award?” 4. The Learned Tribunal after examining the contentions between the parties, calculated the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 74,270/- 3. Transportation of dead body and Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 6 4. Filial consortium Rs. 40,000/- 5. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.24,12,270/- Rounded Off To Rs.24,12,300/- 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is challenged on two grounds. Firstly, he submits that the notional income was wrongly awarded. In the year 2020, the notional income would have been Rs.14,500/- instead of Rs.12,000/- taken by learned Tribunal. In addition, it is stated that the deceased had five family members and the amount under the head of filial consortium awarded is not as per the settled law in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi.2 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance company fairly submits that the notional income was to be taken at Rs.14,500/- for the year 2020 and contends that 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 7 the deceased was not 40 years but over 40 years. He further points out to a sentence in the synopsis wherein it is mentioned that the deceased was aged 42 years. 7. Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal has given a finding on the age of the deceased based on the Aadhar card as per Ex.P.16 of the deceased produced by the appellants/claimants. This finding was not challenged by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company either before the Tribunal or before this Court. In view thereof, this Court cannot find that the deceased was aged more than 40 years. 8. There is no dispute that the notional income for the year 2020 was Rs.14,500/-. Since the deceased was aged 40 years, the award for future prospects was also required to be added, which although added by the learned Tribunal was not calculated correctly, in view of the notional income not being recorded correctly. 9. Taking the notional income at Rs.14,500/- and given the age of the deceased at 40 years, the multiplier would HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 8 be ‘15’. It is also undisputed that there were five family members, namely the wife of the deceased and two minor children as well as the sister and mother of the deceased. Thus, it would lead to the calculation for loss of dependency as follows: Heads Amounts Loss of dependency Rs.14,500 + 40% = 20,300/- Rs.20,300/-x12x3/4x15 =27,40,500/- 10. In addition, in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the filial consortium would be at Rs.40,000/- per family member which would total to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/-x5) and along with 10% addition would be Rs.2,20,000/-. 11. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is revised in the following manner: Sl. No. HEADS AMOUNT 1. Loss of dependency Rs.27,40,500/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 74,270/- 3. Transportation of dead body and Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- 5. Filial consortium Rs. 2,20,000/- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 9 (44,000x5) Total Rs.30,67,770/- Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.24,12,300/- Enhanced Compensation Rs. 6,55,470/- 12. In view of the aforegoing, this Court deems apposite to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is Allowed. (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.10.2021 passed in M.V.C. No.327/2021, by the learned Member, MACT, XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,55,470/- [Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty-five Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy] along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization in addition to Rs.24,12,300/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20274 MFA No. 5003 of 2022 10 (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the learned Tribunal remains undisturbed. (iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 7% p.a. as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. (viii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA