- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 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. 4205 OF 2023 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. PARVATHI W/O LATE MOUNESHAPPA @ S.H.MOUNESHA @ MOUNESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O HONNEBAGI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. 2. SHIVALINGAMMA W/O, LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. R/O HONNEBAGI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRAKASHA H C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT LINGADAHALLI VILLAGE TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 228. (DRIVER OF BUS BEARING No.KA-22-B-4796) 2. T.SHIVAKUMAR S/O THIPPESWAMY MAJOR Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 R/AT B.H.ROAD, TARIKERE (BALLAVAR- KALLATHIPURA) CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. (OWNER OF SRMS BUS BEARING No.KA-22-B-4796) 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MALLAPPA COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. REPD. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A R LAKSHMI NARAYANA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3 V/O DATED 14.12.2025 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.340/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT-X, CHANNAGIRI, 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 SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 05.12.2022 passed in M.V.C. No. 340/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-X, Channagiri. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 2. Even though the appeal is listed today for `Admission’, it is taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for appellants and respondent No. 3. 3. Appellants - claimants had made a claim petition seeking award of compensation for the death of Mouneshappa (husband of claimant No. 1 and the son of claimant No. 2) who died in a road traffic accident on 09.02.2020, contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of SRMS bus bearing registration No. KA-22-B-4796. The Tribunal after recording evidence, appreciating the evidence on record assessed the compensation and awarded compensation under different heads as under: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.14.03,600.00 2. Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000.00 3. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000.00 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 TOTAL Rs.15,08,600.00 4. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realization and directed respondent No. 3 - insurer to pay the award amount with interest. Claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have filed the present appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – insurer. 6. Learned counsel for appellants would contend that the date of birth of the deceased is 11.03.1969 as per his Aadhar card and same has been stated by PW1 in her evidence. The Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 51 years since he has not completed 51 years as on the date of accident. Completed age is to be taken into consideration. If age is taken as 50 years, multiplier applicable is 13. He further submits that the Tribunal has not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 awarded escalation on consortium. The Tribunal has not awarded loss of estate in a sum of Rs.15,000/- with escalation and only awarded funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/- and the claimants are entitled to grant of compensation under all conventional heads with 10% escalation as the accident has occurred 3 years after the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Vs Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – insurer would contend that the deceased had completed 50 years and after completing 50 years, his age is to be considered as 51 years. Since he had completed 50 years, 10 months and 28 days as on the date of accident, the Tribunal has rightly taken his age as 51 years and applied multiplier of 11. He further submitted that the compensation awarded under all heads is just and proper and prayed to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the impugned judgment and award. 9. Date of birth of the deceased as per his Aadhar card as stated by P.W.1 is 11.03.1969. The date of accident is 09.02.2020. The age of the deceased, as on the date of accident was 50 years 10 months 28 days. How age is to be considered for ascertaining the multiplier has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Samsun Bee and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 2026 ACJ 532 wherein it is 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 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 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. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 injured/deceased has positively crossed the age of 36 years, for example if he was aged 36 years and 3 days. 10. The Apex Court has observed that if a person is aged 35 years 11 months, then his age is to be taken as 35 years i.e., completed age. Considering the said aspect, in the case on hand the deceased was aged 50 years 10 months 28 days and therefore his age is to be taken as 50 years for the purpose of ascertaining the multiplier. As the deceased was aged 50 years, the multiplier applicable is 13. The Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,500/- deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and taken future prospects at 25%. Considering the said aspects loss of dependency is calculated as under: 14500 + 25% (3625) = 18125 18125 – 1/3rd = 12083 12083 X 12 X 13 = 1884948 11. The Tribunal has awarded consortium in a sum of Rs.80,000/- calculating Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos. 1 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 and 2. The accident has occurred in the year 2020. Therefore, claimants are entitled to escalation at the rate of 10% not only on consortium but also on other conventional heads, namely, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Considering the said aspect, claimants are entitled to consortium in a sum of Rs.88,000/-, funeral expenses in a sum of Rs.16,500/- and the loss of estate in a sum of Rs.16,500/-. 12. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to total compensation as under: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.18,84,948.00 2. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500.00 3. Loss of estate Rs.16,500.00 4. Loss of consortium Rs.88,000.00 TOTAL Rs.20,05,948.00 13. Claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,05,948/- as against Rs.15,08,600/- as awarded by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Consequently the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,97,348/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 14. In view of the above, the following; O R D E R i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) Claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,97,348/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. iii) Respondent No. 3 - insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from this day failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from this day till the date of payment. iv) Claimants are entitled to release of entire enhanced compensation. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31833 MFA No. 4205 of 2023 v) Claimant No. 1 - wife is entitled to 70% and claimant No. 2 - mother is entitled to 30% of the enhanced compensation. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38