HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4659 OF 2021 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3009 OF 2022 (MV-D) MFA No.4659/2021: BETWEEN: 1. M.R.SHIVAPRAKASH, S/O RAMEGOWDA D., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 2. AMBIKA, W/O M.R.SHIVAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 3. BANUPRIYA, D/O SHIVAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI M.R.SHIVAPRAKASH, APPELLANT NO.1, ALL ARE R/AT MADRAHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, NOW R/O C/O M.R.JAYADEVAIAH, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, C.N.HALLY TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 214. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI B.V.MANJE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 2 - AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC-K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC-TIPTUR DEPOT, TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RADHA B.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.584/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MFA No.3009/2022: BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-27, REPT. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. RADHA B.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M.R.SHIVAPRAKSH S/O D.RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. SMT. AMBIKA W/O M.R.SHIVAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. KUM. BANUPRIYA, D/O SHIVAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, MAJOR. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 3 - ALL ARE R/AT MADRAHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, NOW R/AT C/O MR.R.JAYADEVAIAH, HANDANKERE VILLAGE, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC-TIPTUR DEPOT, TUMKUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.V.MANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH V/ORDER DTD: 30.05.2022) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.13.04.2021 IN MVC NO.584/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.24,88,900/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL ENTIRE REALIZATION THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU) 1. The present appeals seek to challenge the common Judgment and Award dated 13.04.2021 in M.V.C.No.584/2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 4 - Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs.24,88,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till entire realisation. 2. The Appeals though listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties are taken up for final hearing and disposal today itself. 3. M.F.A.No.4659/2021 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and M.F.A.No.3009/2022 is filed by KSRTC seeking to set aside the award of the learned Tribunal. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 31.12.2018 at about 1.00 p.m. when the deceased was going in his motor bike TVS bearing Registration No.KA-06-S-5171 near Kankere Village on Handanakere – Mathighatta Road, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-F-0989 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained head injuries and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 5 - succumbed at the spot. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to PHC of Handanakere where the postmortem was conducted. C.N.Halli police have registered a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 5. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’) was filed by the parents and the sister of the deceased contending that prior to the accident, the deceased was doing agricultural and dairying by rearing cows and earning salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. He was the only breadwinner of the family. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing objections to the petition. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “(i) Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Premakumar @ Premanath died in the accident took place on 31.12.2018, at about 01.00 p.m., on Handanakere to Mathigatta road, near Kankare village, due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-F- 989 by its driver? HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 6 - (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? (iii) What Order or Award?” 7. In order to prove the case of the appellants/claimants, the Appellant No.1/claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1, 14 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P14 including Ex.P1/FIR, Ex.P2/Charge Sheet, Ex.P3/PM report, Ex.P4/IMV Report. In addition, the Identity cards and Bank Passbook of the deceased were marked as Exhibits P5 to P13. 7.1 On behalf of the respondents/KSRTC, one Manjappa was examined as RW.1 who produced only one document being an Authorisation Letter Ex.R1. 8. The learned Tribunal, after examining the deposition of the parties and documents such as charge sheet, IMV report, complaint and FIR, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal further held that due to the said accident the deceased had sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 7 - 8.1 In order to award compensation, the learned Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.11,750/- per month, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd of his income towards personal and living expenses by taking the appropriate multiplier at ‘18’. Thus the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,967/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.23,68,872/- rounded up to Rs.23,68,900/- under the head of ‘loss of dependency’. 8.2 After considering the materials on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation awarded was as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency 23,68,900/- 2 Towards Love & Affection 50,000/- 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of consortium 40,000/- 5 Filial Consortium - 6 Loss of Estate 15,000/- TOTAL 24,88,900/- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 8 - 8.3 The learned Tribunal in all awarded a sum of Rs.24,88,900/- along with interest at 6% from the date of petition till entire realization. 9. As stated above, the Appeals have been filed by the claimants as well as KSRTC and has been contested by both the parties before this Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants states that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Committee for that year was Rs.12,500/-. Thus the amount to be calculated for loss of dependency was required to be taken as per the notional income. Secondly, he submits that the amounts awarded on other heads including the loss of consortium has not been awarded in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1. Lastly, it is his contention that the interest awarded at 6% per annum is 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 9 - also not in accordance with the settled legal provision of law. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents/KSRTC on the other hand fairly does not dispute that the notional income for the year 2018 is Rs.12,500/- per month. He however contends that no additional amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the respondents/KSRTC further submits that the driving licence of the deceased was not produced even though the application for production of driving licence was filed, since the application was dismissed. 12. On a question put to learned Counsel for the KSRTC, as to whether the order of dismissal passed by the learned Tribunal was challenged. The answer is in the negative. 13. Based on the evidence and the documents produced, the question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the compensation and interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law? HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 10 - 14. There is no dispute on the aspect of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle/KSRTC/Respondents. However, based on the evidence as well as records, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased. The accident occurred on 31.12.2018. The notional income for the year 2018 is Rs.12,500/-. The deceased was aged 18 years and had three dependants. In addition, in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, and the Pranay Sethi case, 40% future prospects have to be awarded and 1/3rd of his income should be deducted towards personal and living expenses using the applicable multiplier ‘18’. Thus the income of the deceased is taken at: Rs.12,500/- + 40% = Rs.17,500/- (-) 1/3rd of Rs.17,500/- = Rs.11,667/-. Thus the compensation under the loss of dependency is recomputed as follows: 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 11 - Head Amount Loss of dependency Rs.11,667 x 12 x 18=25,20,072/- 15. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case loss of consortium is payable at Rs.40,000/- to the three claimants, amounting to Rs.1,20,000/-. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation each. In view of the awarding compensation on the head of loss of consortium, awarding compensation on the love and affection does not arise as the same is merged with consortium. p 16. The order of the learned Tribunal dismissing the application for production of driving licence was not challenged either before this Court or before the Tribunal. Therefore that aspect has attained finality. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 12 - 17. On the aspect of the interest to be awarded by the Tribunal, one of us, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, has in a recent judgment captioned United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M And Others3, after analyzing the precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court, has found that an award of 9% interest is in accordance with the settled provisions in the present day scenario, especially in cases of death and permanent disability. It was held that the award of 9% interest has been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the judgment below: “15. The other issue raised is on interest awarded. It is apposite to set out the applicable provision. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’] provides for the award of interest in the following manner: “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. - Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” 3 2026 SCC Online Kar 4090 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 13 - 15.1 A plain reading of the said provision shows that Section 171 of the MV Act does not prescribe any rate of interest and gives the discretion to the learned Tribunal to do so. It further sets out that the Tribunal shall award simple interest from the date of filing the claim. 16. Interest is the compensation for the factum of money being held back from the family of a deceased or the injured. The Courts have from time to time while discussing the principles for award of interest, held that the interest is awarded not because of any contractual obligation but because of the delay in claimants receiving compensation after the occurrence of the accident. 16.1 In Abati Bezbaruah vs. Geological Survey of India4, the Supreme Court has held that the interest rate must be fixed by taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by RBI from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. It was further held that Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 nor Section 4A(3) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 are applicable in fixing the rate of interest. The relevant extract is below: “18. Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, 4 (2003) 3 SCC 148 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 14 - enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court as indicated above.” [Emphasis Supplied] xxx xxx xxx 19. The Supreme Court in Supe Dei (Smt) and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another5 affirmed that 9% per annum is an appropriate and consistently applied rate of interest in motor accident compensation cases, reinforcing uniformity in such awards. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below: “11. Coming to the question of interest this Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. 5 (2009) 4 SCC 513 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 15 - Ltd. observed that 9% is the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded and that rate is being applied in motor accident compensation cases.” [ [Emphasis Supplied] 20. However recently, the Supreme Court in Jagadish vs. Mohan6 awarded interest at 9% per annum on compensation, reaffirming that such rate is appropriate in cases involving death, serious injury and substantial loss. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below: “15. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to compute the disability at 90%. The disability is indeed total. Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss of income, including future prospects, would be Rs 18,14,400. In addition to this amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs 2 lakhs on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses (Rs 98,908); for extra nourishment (Rs 25,000) and for attendant's expenses (Rs 1 lakh) is maintained. The Tribunal has declined to award any amount towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an amount of Rs 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total sum of Rs.25,38,308 by way of compensation. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper identification.” 6 (2018) 4 SCC 571 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 16 - [Emphasis Supplied] 21. The Supreme Court in Savita Devi & Ors. vs SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Others7 relying on the judgment in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.8 has enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 9%, holding that “just compensation” must be determined on principles of fairness, reasonableness, and equitability, and that lower rates may not adequately compensate claimants. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below: “9. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeals succeed and the impugned order(s) by the High Court are set aside and that of the Tribunal is restored. Furthermore, the rate of interest awarded @ 6% per annum by the Tribunal is enhanced to 9% per annum as has been held in Malarvizhi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. and in the interest of determining 'just compensation' based fairness, reasonableness, and equitability.” [Emphasis Supplied] 22. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Niru @ Niharika & Others9 wherein 9% interest awarded was upheld noting that despite fluctuations in economic conditions, such rate remains justified, especially in cases involving prolonged delay. It emphasized that interest should ordinarily run from the date of filing unless delay is clearly attributable to claimants. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out thus: “3. The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court against the award amounts raising multifarious contentions. It was first contended that the accident occurred only due to the rashness and 7 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10053-10054/2024- order dated 02.09.2024. 8 (2020) 4 SCC 228 9 2025 INSC 822 dated 14.07.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 17 - negligence of the car driver. On the quantum, it was submitted that admittedly the wife married in the year 2002 and the multiplier should have been only 7, taken from the death of the first husband. The exchange rate as adopted by the Tribunal, was also assailed together with the interest granted at the rate of 9%, which it was contended was against the existing interest rates. Specific contention was taken against the long delay in disposing of the claim petition, which was filed in the year 1995 and disposed of in the year 2017. The allegation was that the claimants who were residing in the U.K. were solely responsible for the delay occasioned. We see the said contention having been taken relying on Annexure A-4 produced in the memorandum of SLP filed. xxx xxx xxx 7. Yet another contention taken up is the interest granted at the rate of 9%. The Insurance Company relies on Annexure P-1 history of the case to contend that there was undue delay caused by reason of the claimants having not entered their evidence. From Annexure P-1, we see that the claim petition was filed on 28.12.1995 and it first came up for hearing on 11.09.2012. It is seen from Annexure P-1 that the case was posted for applicants' evidence on various dates from 2012 to 2016. However, there is nothing to indicate that it was only by reason of the claimants' absence that the consideration was delayed. Merely because, on various dates, for 4 years, the case was posted for the claimants' evidence, it does not necessarily mean that the claimants were responsible for the delay. Long delays cannot, without proper substantiation, be cast upon the shoulders of one or other party to the lis. We hence do not find any reason to find the delay to be the sole responsibility of the claimants and in that circumstance necessarily interest must run from the date of filing of the claim petition, to the date of payment; for which precedents are legion, and we need not refer to them. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 18 - 8. Further contention taken is the higher rate of interest of 9%, in challenge of which several precedents were placed before us. From the decisions perused what emanates is that in the 1980's, Courts were awarding 12% interest which stood reduced to 9% in the 1990's. With the advent of the 21st century and the economic recession world over, the interest rates fell considerably. But even now the rates offered by National Banks for long term deposits are 7% or more. Considering the over-all circumstances especially the long delay caused, we are of the opinion that 9% interest rate granted by the Tribunal is perfectly in order especially noticing the accident having occurred in the year 1995.” [Emphasis Supplied] 23. In another a recent decision the Supreme Court in Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited And Others10 the issue of grant of interest in motor accident compensation claims was discussed and considered. In the accident in question, one of the claimants survived and suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal had awarded compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Although the Delhi High Court reduced the compensation amount under certain heads, it maintained the award of interest at 9% per annum. The Supreme Court ultimately restored the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and specifically directed that payment be made with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Here again, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the rate of interest and, in fact, reinforced the obligation of timely payment by directing that in case of delay beyond two months, an additional 9% interest per annum would be payable on both the principal amount and accrued interest. The relevant extract is below: 15. The High Court interfered and reduced the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal only on the 10 2025 INSC 526 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 19 - ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008- 2009 had to be excluded from consideration. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a businessman. The relevance of the Income Tax Return stems, in the context of the Act, for the period which it relates to i.e., the Financial Year concerned, and not on the date on which it is filed with the Income Tax Department. When faced with Returns for different Assessment Years, it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to adopt either the average income therefrom or choose an Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good reason to leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt one of the afore-noted two courses of action, bearing in nature the social purpose and object behind the Act, which is a beneficial legislation. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court in the present case has dealt with the matter in such a casual and superficial way where the rightful claim of the appellants under a welfare legislation has been drastically reduced without any cogent reason on a very tenuous ground, which we find to be totally unjustified. As pointed out in Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563: ‘13.…In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after taking note of, inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the ‘… Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future. …’ (underlined in original) 16. On the strength of the reasons afore-indicated, the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the original amount [Rs. 31,41,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs Forty-One Thousand)] awarded by the Tribunal in MACT No. 357515/2016 as compensation is HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 20 - restored. Payment be made to the Appellants by the Respondent No. 1 at the rate of 9% interest per annum after adjusting amount(s), if any, that may have been paid during the interregnum. The exercise be completed within two months from today, failing which an additional 9% interest per annum shall be payable for the period of delay, both on the principal amount as well as on the interest component, till the date of actual payment. No order as to costs, in the circumstances. [Emphasis Supplied] 23.1 In S. Kumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.11, case a similar view was taken where the Supreme Court approved the award of interest at 9% per annum, observing that the learned Tribunal’s grant of 15% interest was ‘exorbitant’ but that the High Court had still allowed a ‘comparatively higher’ rate of interest at 9% p.a. 24. Thus, an analysis of the precedents shows that the award of interest over the last 5-10 years has infact consistently been awarded @ 9% p.a. or upholding such an award. xxx xxx xxx 29. An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the Supreme Court, reflects that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the award of interest is intended to recompensate the claimant for being deprived of the use of money, which ought to have been paid at the time of occurrence of the accident. The rate of interest, therefore, must be just, fair and reasonable, having regard to the prevailing economic conditions and bank rates. 29.1. The award of interest is usually determined at the prevailing bank rate of interest on a case-to- case basis and at the rate which is just and fair and reasonable. 11 (2019) INSC 217 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 21 - 29.2 There cannot be any ‘straitjacket formula’ in determining the rate of interest and that the same must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The guiding principle remains that the rate must neither be punitive nor non-existent but must strike a balance between fairness to the claimant and reasonableness to the insurer. 29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate in case involving death and serious injury especially, where there is a long delay in the claimants receiving the compensation. 30. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2016 leading to the death of the wife of respondent No.1 and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The award came to be passed in the year 2018. The learned Tribunal has deemed it apposite to award interest on the compensation @ 9% per annum. The award of interest is not punitive as is fair considering the prevailing economic condition and bank rates. In addition, it is now 10 years since the date of the accident. 31. The learned Trial Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Award of 9% interest in the circumstances of the present case…” [Emphasis Supplied] 18. The appellants/claimants lost their 18 years old son and the only breadwinner of the entire family. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the recent developments in the law, this Court deems it fit to enhance the interest from 6% to 8% considering the present day scenario. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 22 - 19. In view of the aforegoing discussion, the award of the Tribunal requires to be recalculated in the following terms: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 01. Loss of Dependency 25,20,072/- 02. Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000x3) 1,20,000/- 03. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 04. Transportation of dead body, funeral expenses charges and miscellaneous expenses 15,000/- Total 26,70,072/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 24,88,900/- Enhanced compensation 1,81,172/- 20. The appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.26,70,072/- along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) M.F.A.No.4659/2021 is allowed in part; (ii) M.F.A.No.3009/2022 is dismissed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 23 - (iii) The Judgment and Award dated 13.04.2021 in M.V.C.No.584/2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. & XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli is modified, enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,81,172/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. (v) Respondents/KSRTC is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. Any amounts deposited with this Court will be forwarded to the Tribunal for onward transmission. (vi) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants on filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the amount in the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB MFA No.4659 of 2021 C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022 - 24 - proportion as was set out in the Impugned Award. (vii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (viii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment and the records to the concerned Tribunal. (ix) Pending application(s), if any, stand closed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11