HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3425 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KEMPAIAH S/O LATE SANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. SMT. GOWRI D/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3. SHRI. SHASHIKUMAR, S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT VEERANAHOSAHALLI HADI VILLAGE, DODDA HEJJUR POST, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105. MYSURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MAHESH.R S/O RANGANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT HARANGI ROAD, GUMMANAKOLLI, Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 2 SOMWARPET TQ, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 234. 2. THE MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SHAMPOO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 363, 2ND FLOOR, GURUKAR, DEVANNA STREET, FORT MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI.S.SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE R2; NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O/DTD: 27.09.2021) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:30.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1064/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MYSURU, 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 JAYANT BANERJI & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU) 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and award dated 30.03.2018, in MVC No.1064/2018, passed by the Principal Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 3 awarded compensation to the appellants/claimants in a sum of Rs.10,70,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellants/claimants in MVC No.1064/2018. 3. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the only issue on challenge is with regard to the calculation of loss of dependency, where the notional income was not taken into consideration. Thus, they submit that the matter can be taken up and disposed at the admission stage itself. 3.1 Accordingly, and with the consent of parties, this appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal today. 4. The brief facts are that on 28.07.2018 at about 07.00 a.m., the wife of appellant No.1/claimant no.1, Smt.Tulsamma was commuting in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-12-A-9488 from Panchavalli towards their village. At that time, when they approached near HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 4 Doddahejjur, Dasanpura Hunsur. It is stated that the driver of autorickshaw in which they were commuting drove the same in high speed, lost control over his vehicle and the autorickshaw overturned and the due to the impact of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries to her head and her entire body. She was taken to the Hanagodu Hospital. However, she succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 5. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) was filed by the husband and two children of the deceased. It was stated therein that the deceased was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and maintaining the family. Notice was served on the respondent No.1/driver and owner of the vehicle, as well as respondent No.2, the insurance company. Since respondent No.1/driver did not appear, he was proceeded ex parte. The claim was contested only by the respondent No.2/insurance company. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 5 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1) Whether the petitioners prove that they are dependant of deceased Smt.Thulasamma who died in a road traffic accident arising out of use of vehicle bearing No.KA-12-A- 9488 on 28.07.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, at what extent and from whom? 3) What order or relief?” 7. The appellant No.1/claimant No.1, husband of the deceased appeared as PW-1 and marked documents Exhibits P1 to P11, which included the FIR (Exhibit-P1), Death Intimation (Exhibit-P3), Spot Panchama (Exhibit- P4), Rough Sketch (Exhibit-P5), IMV Report (Exhibit-P6), Inquest Mazhar (Exhibit-P7) and the charge-sheet (Exhibit-P9). The Wound Certificate was also filed as Exhibit-P12 and the Post-Mortem Report as Exhibit-P8 respectively. The respondent No.2/insurance company also examined two witnesses and filed documents as Exhibits R1 to R6. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 6 8. The learned Tribunal after examining the evidence produced by the parties found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-12-A-9488 and that the appellants/claimants would be entitled to compensation under the provisions of the MV Act. In addition, the learned Tribunal found that since the appellants/claimants have not submitted any proof of income, the notional income was to be taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 47 years of age and future prospects were considered at 25%, the loss of dependency was calculated as follows: (Rs.7,000 + 25%) – 1/3 x 12 x 13 = Rs.9,10,000/- 9. In addition, the learned Tribunal also awarded amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency 9,10,000/- 2 Loss of Consortium 1,20,000/- 3 Loss of Estate 15,000/- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 7 4 Funeral Expenses 25,000/- Total 10,70,000/- 10. Thus, it was held that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs.10,70,000/- along with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11. As stated above, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants makes two contentions. Firstly, he contends that the amounts awarded are not in accordance with the notional income Chart as per the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Secondly, he contends that the interest awarded is not in terms of the settled legal principles and recent judgments of the Supreme Court. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company on the other hand submits that in the claim petition itself only a sum of Rs.12,000/- p.m., was claimed by the appellants/claimants. Thus, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,000/- per month. On the aspect of HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 8 interest, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company submits that the interest is in accordance with the settled legal principles. 13. The points for determination that arise before this Court are: (i) Whether the income of the deceased Smt.Thulsamma to be calculated for loss of dependency was to be taken as per the notional income? (ii) What rate of interest is to be awarded? 14. As stated above, the challenge in the present appeal is on the quantum of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. The deceased was stated to be working as a coolie and earning amounts to maintain the family. This is not disputed by the parties. It is also not disputed that the amounts awarded were not as per the notional income Chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Thus, the challenge is on the quantum awarded. The learned Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 9 deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is not as per the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Hence, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.12,500/- per month as per the chart. Since the deceased was 47 years of age the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘13’ and future prospects was considered at 25%. Further, the deceased had three dependants including husband, daughter and a son and hence, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency shall be calculated as follows: (Rs.12,500 + 25%) – 1/3rd x 12 x 13 = Rs.16,25,052/- 15. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Pranay Sethi case, loss of consortium is payable at Rs.40,000/- to three claimants, amounting to Rs.1,32,000/- with escalation of 10%. The appellants/claimants are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads. Accordingly, loss of estate HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 10 and funeral expenses are awarded at Rs.16,500/- each with escalation of 10%. 16. 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 Others1, 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 1 2026 SCC Online Kar 4090 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 11 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.” 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 India2, 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 2 (2003) 3 SCC 148 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 12 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, 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 Another3 affirmed that 9% per annum is an appropriate and consistently applied rate of interest in motor accident compensation cases, 3 (2009) 4 SCC 513 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 13 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. 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. Mohan4 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 4 (2018) 4 SCC 571 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 14 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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 21. The Supreme Court in Savita Devi & Ors. vs SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Others5 relying on the judgment in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.6 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 & Others7 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 5 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10053-10054/2024- order dated 02.09.2024. 6 (2020) 4 SCC 228 7 2025 INSC 822 dated 14.07.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 15 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 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, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 16 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. 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 Others8 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 8 2025 INSC 526 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 17 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 18 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 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.9, 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. 9 (2019) INSC 217 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 19 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. 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. xxx xxx xxx 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. In the present case, the family of the deceased have lost their wife and mother respectively. In addition to providing the requisite support and comfort, she was also caring to support the family. Accordingly, this Court deems it apposite to enhance the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5% per annum. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 20 19. In view of the aforegoing discussions, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires to be recalculated in the following terms: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency [(Rs.12,500 + 25%) – 1/3rd x 12 x 13] 16,25,052/- 2 Loss of Consortium 1,32,000/- 3 Loss of Estate 16,500/- 4 Funeral Expenses 16,500/- Total 17,90,052/- Less : Awarded by the Tribunal 10,70,000/- Enhanced Compensation 7,02,052/- 20. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,90,052/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The interest awarded shall be recalculated at 7.5% per annum, from the date of the petition till the date of realisation as set out under Section 171 of the MV Act. 21. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 21 (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 30.03.2018, in MVC No.1064/2018, passed by the Principal Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru is modified by awarding a total compensation of Rs.17,90,052/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (iii) The interest awarded shall be recalculated from the date of the petition till the date of realisation as set out under Section 171 of the MV Act. (iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. (v) The appellant/Insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. (vi) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the claimants, on HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32556-DB MFA No. 3425 of 2021 22 filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the enhanced amount. (vii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (viii) The Registry is directed transmit the amount in deposit along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records for disbursal. (ix) No order as to costs. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14