- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4089 OF 2023(MV-D) BETWEEN: NEELAKANTHA PRASAD. S., S/O. LATE SIDDALINGADEVARU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.185, AMRUTHESHWARA NAGARA, BELAVADI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 018. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHA B.L, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.M. ANANDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, SUNNI CENTRE, NO. 374, NEW KALIDASA ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, 1ST STAGE, MYSURU - 570 017. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4410, 8TH CROSS, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 007. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 3. MANJUNATH. N., S/O. NARASIMHA JETTAPPA M., RESIDING AT NO. 2741, MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARA, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.04.2026 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 45/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal dated 24.08.2022 in MVC.No.45/2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, as a presiding Officer, Motor - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru.1 The Tribunal by means of award, granted compensation of Rs.8,21,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Smt.Ohileshwari @ Mani and the liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation. 3. Heard Smt.Asha.B.L, learned counsel appearing for Sri.G.M.Ananda, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 are dispensed with vide order dated 30.04.2026. 4. Smt.Asha, learned counsel for the appellant argued this matter on short point stating that the Tribunal has considered the case in view of judgment of this Court in the case of MANAVALAGAN Vs. 1 ‘Tribunal’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 A.KRISHNAMURTHY2 and awarded compensation towards loss of estate and loss of services rendered in managing the house hold by the petitioners. Now, it is settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in any number of cases that in a case of the death of house wife, the compensation be awarded. Considering the loss of dependency and other conventional heads, as a serve rendered by a house cannot be equated interms of monetary income. 5. She further submits that, admittedly, the deceased is survived by husband. Hence, 1/3rd in terms of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER3 be deducted towards personal expenses. The accident had occurred in 2015. As such, income of Rs.9,000/- p.m., is properly taken by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has added 25% towards ‘future prospectus’. However, the Tribunal has erred in 2 2005 ACJ 1992 3 2009 (6) SCC 121 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 considering the case only for ‘loss of estate’ and services in managing the house wife by the deceased. Accordingly, she sought to allow the appeal by considering the case for awarding compensation under the loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as held by the Supreme Court in catena of cases especially Sarla Verma supra and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Vs. PRANY SETHI AND OTHERS4. 6. Refuting the submissions of Madam Asha, Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal has considered the case in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Manavalagan’s case and the Judgment of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. He further submits that even if the case is to be considered under the ‘loss of dependency’, 50% be deducted since the husband is the only survivor to the deceased and sought to dismiss the appeal. 4 2017 (16) SCC 680 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 7. This Court having heard the rival submissions and perused the entire appeal papers. 8. It is a case of death of a house wife. The Supreme Court in catena of cases has held that the service of a house wife to a family is more than the service of any person who is the only bread winner. The services rendered by a house wife are manifold. As such, the Tribunal ought to have considered the case to award compensation under the heads loss of dependency, consortium and other conventional head. 9. Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that, if the loss of dependency is considered as per age and income of the deceased, as per chart and after adding future prospectus and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as per Sarala Verma, supra instead of 50% as contended by the learned counsel for the Insurer, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires re- consideration. 11. In view of the PRANAY SETHI supra, the claimant is also entitled for 10% escalation, since 2017 on the conventional heads. In the case on hand there are two terms of completed three years from 2017. As such, the claimants are also entitled for 20% escalation on the conventional heads. 12. Accordingly, on re-determination the claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Loss of estate/Loss of dependency 4,39,000-00 11,70,000-00 (9000+25%x12x 13x2/3) 2. Loss of services rendered in managing the household by deceased 3,12,000-00 - 3. Loss of consortium 40,000-00 40,000-00 4. Loss of estate - 15,000-00 5. Under conventional Heads 30,000-00 - Funeral and Transport expenses - 15,000-00 6. 20% escalation 14,000 TOTAL 8,21,000-00 12,54,000-00 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 11. On re-determination, the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.4,33,000/-, (Rs.12,54,000 - Rs.8,21,000) which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and award dated 24.08.2022 in MVC.No.45/2016 passed by the Tribunal at Mysuru, is hereby modified. iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,33,000/-, (Rs.12,54,000 - Rs.8,21,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. iv) The Insurer shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25374 MFA No. 4089 of 2023 realization within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v) Upon deposit entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn