- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1175 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SHASHIKUMAR K.H. S/O LATE K B HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O KORATEKRE VILLAGE AJJAMPURA TALUK-577 228. 2. JYOTHI K H W/O PRASANNA KUMAR D/O LATE K B HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O ANUVANAHALLI VILLAGE SHIVANI HOBLI AJJAMPURA TALUK-577 228. 3. K B BASAPPA S/O LATE BOMMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS R/A KORATIKERE VILLAGE AJJAMPURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN CODE - 577 228. (CLAIMANT No.3 BEFORE THE MACT IS DEAD, FURTHER ALREADY L.Rs OF CLAIMANT No.3 IS ON RECORD) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRAKASHA H C, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 AND: 1. RAGAVENDRA K HEGDE S/O KRISHNA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O No.37, 3RD MAIN ROAD VISHWESHWARAIAH BADAVANE 9TH STAGE, MALLATHAHALLI BENGALURU-560 079. (DRIVER OF THE MARUTHI OMNI CAR BEARING REGISTRATION No.KA-03/MA-2569). 2. SUBBARAYA SEETHARAMA HEGDE S/O SEETHARAMA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O YADAHALLI, SIRASI TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 401. (OWNER OF THE MARUTHI OMNI CAR). 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MOODI COMPLEX HOSAPETE ROAD , SIRASI NORTH CANARA-581 401. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE MARUTHI OMINI CAR) BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 V/O DTD. 29.10.2025, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.66/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, TARIKERE, 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: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the judgment and award dated 06.04.2022 passed in MVC No.66/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tarikere. 2. Even though this appeal is listed today for admission, with the consent of learned counsels for both sides, it is taken up for disposal. 3. Appellants/claimants made a claim petition seeking award of compensation for the death of K.B.Halappa in a road traffic accident occurred on 18.11.2019 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Omni Car bearing Regn.No.KA-03/MA-2569. The Tribunal recorded the evidence and appreciating the evidence, assessed the compensation and awarded compensation under different heads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.) 01. Towards loss of dependency 3,99,960.00 02. Transportation and funeral expenses 15,000.00 03. Loss of estate 15,000.00 04. Loss of consortium 1,60,000.00 Total 5,89,960.00 4. The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and held that respondent No.3 – insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The claimants seeking enhancement have filed the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.3 / insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the age of the deceased as per the Aadhar Card is 65 years 10 months as on the date of the accident i.e. 18.11.2019 since the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar Card is 01.01.1954. The Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the deceased as 66 years and erred in applying multiplier. The dependants are the claimants - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 who are four in number and therefore, deduction has to be taken at 1/4th as against 1/3rd taken by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. The accident occurred in the year 2019 and for that year as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income fixed is Rs.14,000/- and the same has to be taken as against Rs.10,000/- taken by the Tribunal. With this he prayed to allow the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is just and proper. The age of deceased taken is also correct and Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused judgment and award. 9. The Tribunal based on Ex.P9 – Aadhar Card has noted the date of birth of deceased as 01.01.1954. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 Tribunal considering that the deceased has crossed 65 years and running 66 years it has taken the multiplier applicable for the age group between 66 to 70 i.e. multiplier 5. The completed age is to be taken into consideration. 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. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 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 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 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. 10. In view of the above, completed age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. As the deceased has completed 65 years and not yet completed 66 years, his age is to be taken as 65 years and multiplier applicable is 7. 11. The accident occurred in the year 2019 and the notional income fixed for the said year by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is Rs.14,000/-. Therefore, the notional income of Rs.14,000/- has to be taken into consideration as against Rs.10,000/- taken by the Tribunal. The claimants are four dependants of deceased and deduction to be taken towards personal expenses of the deceased is 1/4th as against 1/3rd taken by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 Tribunal. In view of the above, loss of dependency is calculated as under: Rs.14,000–¼=Rs.10,500x12x7 = Rs.8,82,000/- 12. The Tribunal has rightly awarded consortium of Rs.1,60,000/-, funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to total compensation under different heads as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.) 01. Towards loss of dependency 8,82,000.00 02. Transportation and funeral expenses 15,000.00 03. Loss of estate 15,000.00 04. Loss of consortium 1,60,000.00 Total 10,72,000.00 13. Considering the above, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,82,040/- (Rs.10,72,000– Rs.5,89,960) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. In view of the above, the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The appellants -claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,82,040/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. iii) Respondent No.3/insurer shall deposit the said enhanced amount with interest within a period of six weeks from this day, failing which, it is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from this day till payment/deposit of enhanced compensation amount. iv) The ratio of share of compensation among the claimants as held by the Tribunal remains unaltered. v) The claimants are entitled to release of enhanced compensation as per their share awarded by the Tribunal. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31730 MFA No. 1175 of 2023 vi) Since claimant No.3 before the Tribunal is dead, her share in the compensation shall be distributed equally among the other three claimants. vii) The claimants are not entitled to interest for the delay period of 215 days in filing the appeal. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34