- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12672 MFA No. 5294 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5294 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MEENAKSHI, W/O LATE KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 2. SUNILKUMAR M K, S/O LATE KUMARA, AGED 24 YEARS. 3. ANIL, S/O LATE KUMARA, AGED 22 YEARS. 4. VARALAKSHMI, D/O LATE KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O KIRANGURU VILLAGE, K SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DIST. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M Y.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESH S M, MAJOR, S/O MARISWAMYGOWDA, R/AT NO.55, SHADHANAHALLI VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TQ, MANDYA DISRICT - 571 439. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12672 MFA No. 5294 of 2020 2. THE MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.846, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, AKSHAYA BANDAR, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU - 570 019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. C. SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O/D 04.11.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.501/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 18.01.2020 passed in MVC.No.501/2019, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel Sri.Sreenivasan M.Y appearing for the appellants and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12672 MFA No. 5294 of 2020 learned counsel Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda appearing for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order dated 04.11.2022. 3. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50% towards the personal living expenses of the deceased which, runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence he seeks to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that no income proof is produced. Hence, the assessment of the income is correct and the deduction by the Tribunal at 50% for personal expenses is on the basis that claimant No.4 is a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12672 MFA No. 5294 of 2020 married daughter, which also does not call for any modification. Hence he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 7. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is : "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?" 8. The aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative for the following reason: The appellants are the wife and children of deceased Kumar, who sustained grievous injuries in a road accident dated 09.10.2018 and succumbed to those injuries. The records indicate that the deceased was running a salon shop and earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no proof of income is produced before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12672 MFA No. 5294 of 2020 the Tribunal. In the absence of legally acceptable evidence with regard to income, this Court notionally re-assesses the income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/- per month, placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The assessed income would also be subject to an addition of 10% towards the head of future prospects. Insofar as deduction of compensation by the Tribunal towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased at 50% is concerned. In my considered view, the Tribunal has grossly erred. 9. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1, the appropriate deduction should not be 50% as the claimants are wife and children of the deceased. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently contend that the claimant No.4 is a married daughter and residing in a marital home, cannot be 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12672 MFA No. 5294 of 2020 considered as a dependent of the deceased. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that if the deduction towards personal and living expenses is at 1/3rd, he has no objection. 11. Recording the said submissions, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is considered at 1/3rd of the total assessed income. Furthermore, the Tribunal has also erred in awarding lesser compensation under the head of loss of consortium and the same is required to be enhanced. Accordingly, the compensation is reassessed as under: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependancy (12,500+10%x12x9-1/3) 9,90,000.00 Loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation and dead body 30,000.00 Loss of Consortium (40,000x4) 1,60,000.00 Total 11,80,000.00 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12672 MFA No. 5294 of 2020 12. Hence, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.5,15,500/- to Rs.11,80,000/-. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:- ORDER i. The Appeal is partly allowed; ii. The judgment and award dated 18.01.2020 passed in MVC.No.501/2019 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Bengaluru, is modified; iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.11,80,000/- as against Rs.5,15,500/- along with an interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization; iv. The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12672 MFA No. 5294 of 2020 deposits and release shall remain unaltered; v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay; vi. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40