HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4142 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN: RAMANNA S/O LATE OBANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT BELADARA VILLAGE, TUMKUR TALUK-572 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.SHANTHARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T.V.VEERABHADRAIAH S/O. VEERANNAA, AGED MAJOR, THARIDALLU VILLAGE, TONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-561 201. (POLICY HOLDER OF TRACTOR TRAILER REG NO.KA-40 T-1824/1825) 2. T.K.JAGADISH S/O.KODAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT THEETHA(POST), KORATAGERE TALUK-572129. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 2 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SRINIVASA MARKET COMPLEX, THIMMA ROAD, DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.SHANKARA REDY., ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 & R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O/DTD:08.08.2023) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED30.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.367/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRISIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK-I AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. AT TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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) ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2017: 1. The present application I.A.No.1/2017 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 1552 days in filing the appeal. The application is annexed with an affidavit filed by the appellant/claimant being the father of the deceased, explaining the reasons for the delay that has occasioned. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 3 Initially, a claim petition was filed by both the parents of the deceased boy. However, the mother of the deceased boy died during the pendency of the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the father of the deceased boy. 2. The appellant No.1/claimant has sworn an affidavit before this Court on 29.05.2017 stating that the deceased was his only son. The appellant No.1/claimant submits that they were extremely poor and did not have the wherewithal to file the appeal. It is stated that though the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, it took some time before the Insurance Company could deposit the award amount. They were waiting for the deposit of the award amount by the Insurance Company. They had also filed an Execution Petition No.206/2016 in the meantime. Thus, there was a delay in filing this appeal. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and due to bonafide reasons. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 4 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that although no ground for condonation of delay has been made out, in the interest of justice, the application be allowed subject however to the condition that no interest be imposed on the respondent No.3/Insurance Company for the period of delay, in the event of any enhancement. 4. In view of what is stated above, I.A.No.1/2017 is allowed. In the event that the amounts are enhanced, the appellant/claimant will not be awarded interest for the period of 1,552 days of delay in filing the appeal. This application stands disposed of. 5. Although this matter is listed for Admission today, given the limited issues involved, the appeal has been finally heard and decided with the consent of the parties, today itself. 6. This appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 30.10.2012, in MVC No.367/2011, passed by the Fast HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 5 Track-I & Addl. MACT, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the appellant/claimants in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. 7. The challenge in the present appeal has been raised by the appellant/claimant seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 8. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, was dispensed with by this Court by an order dated 08.08.2023. 9. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2011, the deceased i.e., son of the appellant/claimant was walking on the road with his elder brother. At about 06.00 p.m., a tractor-trailer bearing Registration No.KA-40/T-1824-1825 stated to be driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the deceased from the rear side. Due to the impact, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 6 the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. 10. A claim petition seeking compensation was filed by the parents of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’). It was stated in the petition that the deceased was 15 years old at the time of the accident and was a coolie who was contributing to the income of his family. 10.1 Notice of the petition was served to the respondents. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the owner of the tractor- trailer and the Insurance Company respectively, filed their written statements. There was no appearance on behalf of respondent No.1/driver in spite of service of notice. Hence, he was proceeded with exparte. The respondents denied the rash and negligent driving and also laid the blame for the accident on the deceased himself. 11. In order to prove their case, the appellant/claimant being the father of the deceased, examined himself as PW.1 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 7 while an eye-witness was examined as PW.2. Six documents were marked on behalf of the claimants/appellant being the copy of the FIR (Ex.P1), complaint (Ex.P2), post-mortem report (Ex.P3), charge- sheet (Ex.P4), death certificate of the claimant No.2 (Ex.P5) and the Genealogy (Ex.P6). No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents but a copy of the Insurance policy was marked as Exhibit R1. 12. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, the petitioner No.2 i.e., the mother of the deceased passed away and it was stated that the petitioner No.1 was her only legal heir who is already on record. 13. The learned Tribunal after examining the evidence placed before it, found that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the tractor-trailer and based on the FIR, the charge-sheet and the post-mortem report, it was held that the negligence of the driver of the tractor-trailer was proved. In addition, given that the deceased was aged HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 8 about 15 years at the time of his death, the learned Tribunal assessed his income based on guesswork, i.e., notional income relying on a judgment of this Court in S. Sanaulla and another vs. A.R. Shivashankar and others1 and the learned Tribunal awarded global compensation in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 14. 14. As stated above, the challenge in the present appeal is by the claimant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that compensation has not been awarded in accordance with the settled legal principles. He submits that it is now settled law that in the case of death of a minor child, the notional income or the minimum wages of a skilled worker are to be awarded. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that at present notional income is awarded in the case of death of a minor child. He 1 ILR 2008 KAR 1896 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 9 however submits that the Impugned Award was passed in the year 2012 and thus the recent law cannot be made applicable. 16. Based on the contentions of the parties the question that arises for determination before this Court is, whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and if so, in what amount? 17. As already stated above, the challenge by the appellant/claimant is on the award of the notional income. It is not disputed that the notional income for the year 2011, as per the Notional Income Chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is Rs.6,500/- p.m. Thus, the notional income has to be calculated at Rs.6,500/- per month. 18. The award of compensation for death in the case of a minor child, is no longer res-integra. The Supreme Court HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 10 has crystallized the law applicable in the case of death of a minor in a motor vehicle accident in (i) Minor Roopa D/o. Basappa vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited2(ii) Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And Another3. 18.1 The Supreme Court in Master Ayush case while discussing the entitlement of the compensation in the case of a minor child held that, minimum wages in the State where the accident occurred of a skilled worker as of the date of the accident, that compensation would be assessed thereon on the assumption that the deceased would have been able to earn after attaining maturity. The relevant extract is set out below: “9. In the present appeal, the minimum wages for 2010- 11 in the State of Karnataka for employments not covered under any of the scheduled employments can be ascertained from the following extract of notification for minimum wages published in the Gazette on 19-2-2007: 2 (2024) 12 SCC 490 3(2022) 7 SCC 738 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 11 “24. Employment not covered in any of the Scheduled Employments Notification No. KAE 79 LMW 2005 dated 17-3-2006 Published in Gazette dated 19-2-2007 Cost of Living Allowance to be paid over and above 2703 points Cost of Living Index: 3944-2703 = 1241 points Minimum wages and VDA from 1-4-2010 to 31-3-2011 SCHEDULE S.No. Class of Employment Minimum rates of wages payable for different zones Basic VDA Total 1 2 3 4 5 1. Highly skilled 2691.80 1116.90 3808.70 2. Skilled 2591.80 3808.70 3708.70 3. Semi-skilled 2041.80 1116.90 3158.70 4. Unskilled 1891.80 1116.90 3008.70 VDA: All categories of employees: 3 paise per point per day over and above 2703 points. 10. Hence, as per the above extract, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in 2010-11 is to the tune of Rs 3708.70. In this view, the minimum wages as on the date of accident is rounded off to Rs 3700. The compensation, therefore, is to be assessed on the basis of the said minimum wages on the assumption that the appellant would have been able to earn after attaining majority.” [Emphasis Supplied] 19. The law on this aspect was examined in a recent judgment passed by one of us, Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in the case of Master Nikhil vs. S.T. Swamy Gowda And Another4.It was held that in relation to the 4 MFA No. 2703/2017, dt.15.04.2026:NC:2026: KHC:20458 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 12 death of the minor child, compensation equivalent to minimum wages in the State in the following terms: 12. So far as the first aspect of the matter, the law as settled by the Supreme Court is that in the case of a death or injury of a minor child, the Minimum Wages of the Skilled Worker are to be awarded. The Supreme Court in Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another5while discussing entitlement of the compensation in the case of a minor child held that minimum wages in the State where the accident occurred of a skilled worker as of the date of the accident and that compensation would be assessed thereon on the assumption that the Appellant would have been able to earn after attaining maturity. The relevant extract is set out below: “10. Hence, as per the above extract, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in 2010-11 is to the tune of Rs 3708.70. In this view, the minimum wages as on the date of accident is rounded off to Rs.3700. The compensation, therefore, is to be assessed on the basis of the said minimum wages on the assumption that the appellant would have been able to earn after attaining majority.” [Emphasis Supplied] 13. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Minor Roopa D/o Basappa v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited where the injured was a minor girl who suffered permanent physical impairment. The Court while relying on the Master Ayush case determined compensation on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker in the following terms: “4.The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the photographs of the appellant which shows the extent of loss of limb and the consequent psychological, emotional and physical pain which the appellant would suffer for rest of her life. In fact, the 5 (2022) 7 SCC 738 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 13 other leg may not be able to support the appellant, when she grows. This Court in Ayush [Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 7 SCC 738 : (2022) 4 SCC (Civ) 175 : (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 269] was considering a case of an accident of 5-year- old child wherein this Court determined compensation on account of loss of future earnings on the basis of minimum wages due to permanent disability for life, loss of future prospects, medical expenses and pain and suffering.” 5. The minimum wages in the State of Karnataka on the date of accident were Rs 4320 per month as per Notification No. KAE 79 LMW 2005 dated 17-3-2006, published in the Gazette dated 19-2- 2007. The wages as per the notification are as under: “Minimum Wages and VDA from 1-4-2012 to 31-3- 2013 SCHEDULE Sl.No. Class of Employment Minimum rates of wages payable for different zones Basic VDA Total 1 2 3 4 5 1. Highly skilled 2691.80 1728.90 4420.70 2. Skilled 2591.80 1728.90 4320.70 3. Semi-skilled 2041.80 1728.90 3770.70 4. Unskilled 1891.80 1728.90 3620.70 6.The future prospectus would be 40% in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . Thus, the compensation works out to be Rs 4320 plus 40%, amounting to Rs 6048 per month. The appellant will not be able to use any artificial limb and would always have to depend for her daily chores and as she grows, she would suffer more physical and emotional distress. She would always require assistance of another person and frequent use of hired means of HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 14 transport. In view of the said fact, we award compensation as follows: Head Amount A Loss of future earnings due to the permanent disability for life (4320 + 1728 = 6048) x 12 x 18 Rs.13,60,368 B Medical Expenses including future expenses Rs.5,00,000 C Pain, suffering and loss of amenities Rs.5,00,000 D Loss of marriage prospects Rs.10,00,000 E One attendant charges (4624 x 12 x 18) = 9,98,784 Rs.10,00,000 F Conveyance charges (as she has to move in a hired conveyance) Rs.10,00,000 Total Rs.53,06,368 Rounded off Rs.53,07,000 [Emphasis Supplied] 14. A similar view has been taken in the Hitesh Nagji case by the Supreme Court. It was held in cases involving a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, the child cannot be treated as a non-earning individual merely because he or she was not engaged in gainful employment. The computation of compensation under the head of loss of income must be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the concerned State. The relevant extract of the Hitesh Nagji case is set below: “9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 15 minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. xxx xxx xxx 15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court’s interference, applying well- established principles of law.” [Emphasis Supplied] 15. The settled law in this behalf is thus that in case of a death or an injury of a minor child, the minimum wages of a skilled worker are to be awarded. The Impugned Award was, however, passed on 08.09.2016, which is prior to the judgments referred to being in force.” [Emphasis supplied] HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 16 20. In addition, this Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimants that the law as it was applicable as on the date of the accident has to be considered. This appeal is a continuation of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. The Impugned Award has not yet attained finality. 21. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. It was framed to provide compensation based on the contemporaneous position of law, and if any enhancement is to be given, it must be made on the law as on that date. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivaleela & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.6, while relying on the case of K. Ramya & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.7and Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,8 has held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial 6 2025 SCC Online SC 563 7 2022 SCC Online SC 1338 8 (2009) 13 SCC 710 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 17 and welfare legislation intended to provide compensation based on the contemporaneous position of an individual, adopting a forward-looking approach aimed at ensuring stability and continuity in the lives of victims and their dependents. The Supreme Court has taken a view that given in a beneficial legislation, if any enhancement is to be given, it is to be made in terms of the law as on that date. The relevant extract of Shivaleela case is below: “13. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the entire facts and circumstances of the cases and material on record, we opine that it may be reasonably assumed that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month. The compensation awarded by the High Court under the other heads, being in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the decisions in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, does not require any interference. 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. …’ The present coram has respectfully restated HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 18 the said observations in S Vishnu Ganga v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182.” [Emphasis Supplied] 21.1 The Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand9, while relying on the M.A. Murthy case, has held that once a principle of law is enunciated by this Court, it has to be taken as the law from inception and is applicable to all pending matters, irrespective of the stage at which they stand. At the same time, it was clarified that such an enunciation of law will not have the effect of reopening matters which have already attained finality solely for the purpose of applying the principle so laid down. It was held that awards and judgments passed prior to the pronouncement in the Pranay Sethi case cannot be faulted for having fixed amounts under the conventional heads in excess of what was prescribed later. The relevant extract of the Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand case is set out below: 9(2025) 3 SCC 23 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 19 “12. In tune with the question of law No.’C’, the respondent insurer took a ground in the appeal contending that the High Court had gone wrong in granting amount in excess of Rs 70,000 under the conventional heads. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew our attention to the law laid down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]. Para 59.8 of the said decision would reveal that this Court held that under the conventional heads, only a total amount of Rs 70,000; the split-up being Rs 15,000 under the head loss of estate, Rs 40,000 under the head loss of consortium and Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenses, is grantable. 13. It is to be noted that after having held thus, this Court went on to hold that the amounts thus fixed under the conventional heads should be revisited every three years and the enhancement should be @ 10% in a span of three years. Even while taking into account the said position laid down by this Court in Pranay Sethi case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205], we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court cannot be found at fault with fixing the amounts in excess of the aforesaid amounts fixed by this Court as the award and the judgment of the High Courts were passed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . 14. But at the same time, it is to be noted that in the decision in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka [M.A.Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 7 SCC 517 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1076 : (2003) 264 ITR 1 : 2003 INSC 447], this Court held that when in a decision this Court enunciates a principle of law, it is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency thereof because it is to be assumed that what is enunciated by this Court is, in fact, the law from inception. We may hasten to add that we shall not be understood to have held that pursuant to HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 20 enunciation of a principle of law, matters that attained finality shall be reopened solely for the purpose of applying the law thus laid. But at the same time, if the matter is pending, then, irrespective of the stage, the principle cannot be ignored. 15. Now, we will consider the contention of the respondent insurer regarding the failure of the High Court to deduct one-third of the income while calculating the compensation payable by way of enhancement, in terms of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121. This is because the decision in Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 was very much in force as a precedent since 15-4-2009. In view of the same, we are of the view that the respondents are justified in contending that the High Court ought to have deducted one-third of the income while calculating the compensation by way of enhancement, in terms of Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121]. [Emphasis Supplied] 22. In the present case, it is undisputed that the minor child was aged 15 years old as on the date of the accident and that the accident occurred in the year 2011 and the Notional Income Chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for 2011 is Rs.6,500/- p.m. In addition, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, the future prospects is required to be taken at HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 21 40% since the deceased was a minor and the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘18’. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is recomputed in the following manner: Head Amount Loss of dependency Rs.6,500 + 40% = Rs.9,100/- Rs.9,100x50%x12x18=Rs.9,82,800/- 22.1 Further, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi10, loss of consortium is payable at Rs.40,000/- to the appellant/claimant. Since there is only one appellant/claimant, he is entitled to Rs.40,000/-. In addition, the appellant/claimant is also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ at Rs.15,000/- each. 23. Given the fact that the award was passed in the year 2012 and it is 14 years since then, this Court also deems it apposite to add escalation at the rate of 30% on the 10 (2017) 16 SCC 680 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 22 ‘conventional heads’. Thus, the revised calculation as regards the amount of compensation would be as follows : Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency 9,82,800/- 2 Loss of Consortium 52,000/- 3 Loss of Estate 19,500/- 4 Funeral Expenses 19,500/- TOTAL 10,73,800/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 2,25,000/- Enhanced compensation 8,48,800/- 24. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,73,800/- along with interest at 6% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the appellant/claimant will not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay of 1,552 days. 25. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 23 (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 30.10.2012, in MVC.No.367/2011, passed by the Fast Track-I & Addl. MACT, Tumkur, is modified, awarding total compensation of Rs.10,73,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the appellant/claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 1,552 days; (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed; (iv) The respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest as applicable and as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today; (v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34429-DB MFA No. 4142 of 2017 24 appellant/claimant, on filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the enhanced amount; (vi) The amounts deposited by the Insurance company, if any, shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. (vii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly; (viii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment along with its records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith; (ix) No order as to costs. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2