- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 3163 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. PRABHY BUILDING, OPP. AUNA TALKIES MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR-574 201. REPRESENTED BY. THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.. 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. MANJULA NEMICHANDRA TEJASWI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.MAGDALINE D’SOUZA W/O LATE HENRY D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT KUDRALABETTU HOUSE BADAGAKARANDOOR VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214. 2. ANUP JOEL D'SOUZA S/O LATE HENRY D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT KUDRALABETTU HOUSE BADAGAKARANDOOR VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 3. AJAY JEEVAN D'SOUZA S/O LATE HENRY D'SOUZ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT KUDRALABETTU HOUSE BADAGAKARANDOOR VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214. 4. KUM. ASHMITHA JESLY D'SOUZA D/O LATE HENRY D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT KUDRALABETTU HOUSE BADAGAKARANDOOR VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214. 5. KARUNAKARA HEGDE S/O PIJINA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT PARLANDA KALLAGUDDE HOUSE KARAMBARU VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214, D.K. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4 (V.K. NOT FILED BY R/O R2 R5-SERVED – UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.11.2024 PASSED IN MVC No.1047/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XV BELTHANGADY D.K. AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,98,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.06.2026, THIS DAY, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING; CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 04.11.2024 passed in MVC No.1047/2023 by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XV, Belthangady, D.K.District. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 / claimants made a claim petition before the Tribunal praying to award compensation for the death of Henry D’Souza in a road traffic accident which occurred on 30.03.2023 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of rider of Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-19/L- 4850. The Tribunal recorded the evidence, appreciating the evidence assessed the compensation and awarded compensation under different heads as under: Sl.No. Compensation heads Compensation amount (Rs.) 01. Towards loss of dependency 10,08,000/- 02. Towards loss of spousal consortium to the petitioner No.1 40,000/- 03. Towards loss to estate 15,000/- 04. Towards transportation of dead body funeral and obsequies 15,000/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 ceremony expenses 05. Towards loss of parental consortium to petitioner No.2 to 4 (Rs.40,000 x 3) 1,20,000/- Total 11,98,000/- 3. The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and directed the appellant/insurer to pay the award amount with interest. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded the insurer has filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would contend that the date of birth of the deceased is 15.10.1957 as per Ex.P10 and P11 and as on the date of accident i.e. 30.03.2023 he is aged about 65 years 8 months. Therefore, his age is to be considered as 66 years for the purpose of considering the multiplier. The multiplier applicable for person aged 66 years is 5 and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier ‘7’. The deceased comes between the age group of 66 to 77 years and not under age group of 61 to 65 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier ‘7’ instead of ‘5’. She further contended that as the deceased is nearer to the age of 66 years, the multiplier in between ‘5’ and ‘7’ i.e. ‘6’ is to be considered. She further contended that deceased has left behind the claimants who are the wife, two major sons and a major daughter. In the statement recorded while drawing inquest mahazar, it is stated that second claimant/son is working and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. and fourth claimant/daughter is working as Nurse. Even though the said documents are produced before the Tribunal but they are not marked and now they can be considered. She further submits that the Tribunal considering the claimants are four persons who are dependants had taken the deduction towards personal expenses at 1/4th. The claimants 1 and 3 are only two persons who are dependants of the deceased and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 therefore, deduction to be taken is 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would contend that the completed age has to be taken into consideration for ascertaining multiplier applicable. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in MFA No.5353/2024 disposed on 07.08.2025 wherein the age of the deceased has been taken as the completed year in ascertaining the multiplier. He further contended that even though the claimants are not depending on the deceased as they are earning son and daughter, that cannot be considered for deduction towards personal expenses. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.102868/2014 decided on 04.08.2022 placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Smt.Manjuri Bera vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another (Civil Appeal No.1702/2007 dated 30.03.2007) has held that married sons are also entitled for compensation not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 only on conventional heads but also loss of dependency. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others (AIR 2020 SC 434) wherein the Apex Court held that even though the major sons of the deceased are earning are entitled to compensation under head of loss of dependency. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has rightly taken the claimants as four persons who are the dependants of the deceased and deducted only 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased while calculating the loss of dependency. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused, judgment, award and trial Court records. 8. The following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the completed age or continuing age is to be taken into consideration for applying multiplier? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased considering the fact that the claimants are four dependants of the deceased even though they are earning and not dependent on the deceased? On Point No.1: 9. The date of birth of deceased is 15.10.1957 as per Ex.P10 - driving license and Ex.P11- Aadhar Card. The accident occurred on 30.03.2023. As on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 65 years 8 months. Considering the fact that the deceased has not completed 66 years, the Tribunal has taken the age of deceased as 65 years and applied multiplier of 7. What is the criteria to take age for applying multiplier has come up before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Samsun Bee and others vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd and others (2026 ACJ 532) wherein the Apex Court has held as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 “9. On the aspect of multiplier, both the Tribunal and the High Court applied it to be 13. As already observed supra the age was determined as 45 years and 3 months on the basis of marksheet. The question that arises is whether the multiplier to be applied will be 13 or 14, given the categorisation made in Sarla Verma (Supra). The same is reproduced as under for reference, as approved in Pranay Sethi (Supra). “42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in para 19 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 42 is extracted below : (Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 140) “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 9776 of 2025 Page 5 of 12 (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” As can be seen from the above the multiplier of 14 is to be applied when the age of the deceased person is falls within 41 to 45 and multiplier of 13 is to be applied when the age of the deceased person is between 46 and 50. In this case, the age is categorically recorded as been 45 years and 3 months. The question then is whether the higher multiplier would continue to apply till the person has clearly entered into the next age bracket i.e., 46 to 50 or, would the lower multiplier be applied immediately after the day, that the deceased person crosses the threshold of 45 for instance as in the present case. In our considered view, the former is the correct approach. We say so for the reason that, in general parlance when age is described or discussed, the higher number is addressed only when the person attains that particular age. That apart, legally speaking the age is a crucial aspect that has to be taken into account when the Tribunal or higher appellate authorities are tasked with determining the possibilities of future earning of the deceased person. The higher the age the lesser the multiplier. Therefore, keeping in view the overarching principle of just and fair compensation which is to inform each and every computation, application of a lower multiplier right at the higher threshold of the previous one, it has to be held the same would be impermissible. In other words, the high limit of the previous multiplier would be inclusive of the 12 months’ time, till the age of the deceased person is squarely within the lower limit of the next bracket. To illustrate, in case where the age of the deceased person or injured person, is 35 years 11 months, then the multiplier of 16 would apply, instead of 15. The later would only apply once the injured/deceased has positively crossed the age of 36 years, for example if he was aged 36 years and 3 days. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 10. Considering the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as the deceased is aged 65 years 8 months, his age is to be taken into consideration as 65 years and multiplier applicable for the persons aged between 61 to 65 years is ‘7’. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier considering the age of the deceased as 65 years. 11. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased has crossed age of 65 years, the multiplier in between ‘5’ to ‘7’ i.e. ‘6’ has to be taken into consideration. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier applicable for the persons aged between 61 to 65 years is ‘7’ and for the persons aged between 66 to 70 years is ‘5’. The said decision does not provide any multiplier applicable in between. Therefore, the said argument of learned - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 counsel for the appellant requires to be rejected. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. On Point No.2: 12. The claimants are wife, two major sons and major daughter of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the wife and one son are dependants on deceased. What is disputed is one son i.e. claimant No.2 is working and earning salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m. and claimant No.4/daughter working as Nurse and earning and not dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal considering the fact that the claimants are four persons who are dependant on the deceased has deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of deceased. The deceased is having wife, two sons and a daughter. The daughter is not married as on the date of accident. Two sons even though are major were residing with the deceased. The second claimant in his evidence has stated that he is working and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that claimant No.4 - - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 daughter of deceased in her statement recorded at the time of drawing inquest mahazar has stated that she is working as nurse and earning. Those documents are produced by the claimants but they are not marked. Any document which is not admitted in the evidence cannot be taken into consideration even though they are part of the trial Court records. The deceased is having wife, two sons and a daughter. The contribution of the deceased towards his family prior to the sons and daughter attaining the age of majority, is 3/4th of his income (1/4th towards his personal and living expenses). Even after the sons attaining majority and one son earning, personal expenses of the deceased will not increase so as to reduce the contribution of deceased to the family. The deceased was having responsibility of marriage of fourth claimant and claimant No.3 / son even though claimant No.2 son is working and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. to reduce the contribution of the deceased to the family by deducting more towards his personal and living - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32134 MFA No. 3163 of 2025 expenses. Considering the said aspect, the deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses by the deceased as held by the Tribunal is just and proper. 13. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73