HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5443/2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.ROOPASHREE.H.S, W/O LATE SUNDARESHA.H.M, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2. MISS.MANVI SUNDAR, D/O. LATE SUNDARESHA.H.M, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1, PERMANENT ADDRESS OF APPELLANTS HOREYALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, PRESENTLY R/AT C/O. SHIVANNA, NO.4, SRIKANTESHWARANAGARA, OPPOSITE TO CARMEL SCHOOL, OOTY ROAD, NANJANGUD. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT.B.N.MANJULA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.JOERENNY, S/O RENNY JACOB, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 11B CORAL CREST, SRM ROAD, LISSIE HOSPITAL JN, SRNAKULAM, KERALA-682 018. 2. MR.RENNY JACOB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, EASTEND AGENCIES PVT. LTD., 42/2406, PLANTERS PLACE, Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 2 K.K.PADMANABHAN ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KERALA-682 018. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O. 1, J.L.B.ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSORE-4, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.ASHA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GEORGE PHILIP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1147/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and 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 19.01.2019 in M.V.C.No.1147/2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nanjangud (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the appellants/claimants in a sum of Rs.26,21,761/- along HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 3 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit. 2. Since the issue involved is limited only to quantum, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 30.09.2016 at about 3.30 p.m. when the deceased Sundaresha H.M., was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-10-R-8372 from Horeyala Village to Nanjangud, at that time, on Bengaluru Gundlupet Main Road, near Hirekati Gate, respondent No.1 being the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KL-07-CD-9093 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner from Gundlupet side and hit the motorcycle of the deceased causing accident. In the accident, Sundaresha sustained grievous multiple injuries on his head, left leg and other parts of the body. He was immediately shifted to JSS Hospital, Mysuru and on 11.10.2016 he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Begur Police have registered a criminal case HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 4 against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. 4. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’) was filed by the wife and minor daughter of the deceased contending that prior to the accident, the deceased was working in Jubilient Factory as Security Guard and Driver (Shashi Detective Services Private Ltd.) earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the only breadwinner of the family. 5. After service was effected, respondent No.2 though served remained exparte. Respondent No.1 (Driver) and respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) appeared through their Counsel. However, objections were filed only by respondent No.3. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioners prove the alleged accident and the death of Sundresha H.M.- husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, in the said accident? 2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 5 3. What Order or Award?” 7. In order to prove the case of the claimants, the claimant No.1/wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1. The employer of the deceased was examined as PW.2 and got 18 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P18 including Exs.P1 & P2/Complaints, Ex.P3/FIR, Ex.P4/spot mahazar, Ex.P5/sketch, Ex.P6/IMV Report, Ex.P7/Inquest Report, Ex.P8/PM Report, Ex.P9/Charge Sheet, In addition, the income certificate, pay slips and Identity cards of the deceased were marked as Exhibits P10 to P15. In addition, medical bills and prescriptions were marked as Exhibits P16 and P17. On behalf of the respondents, neither evidence was adduced nor the documents were produced. 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 also held that there was no dispute as to the accident. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 6 9. In order to award compensation, the learned Tribunal found that the deceased was working as Security Guard and Driver in Jubilient Factory (Shashi Detective Services Pvt. Ltd.). In addition, the learned Tribunal as per salary certificate and pay slips assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,950/-, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd of his income towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of ‘16’ since the deceased was aged 33 years. Thus the learned Tribunal awarded compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ as follows: Rs.18,130/- x 12 x 2/3 x 16 = Rs.23,20,640/- 10. After considering the materials on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation under the heads of medical expenses, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation awarded was as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency 23,20,640/- 2 Medical Expenses 2,31,121/- 3 Loss of Consortium 40,000/- 4 Loss of estate 15,000/- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 7 5 Funeral and other Expenses 15,000/- TOTAL 26,21,761/- 10.1. The learned Tribunal in all awarded a sum of Rs.26,21,761/- along with interest at 6% from the date of petition till its deposit. 11. The Appeal has been filed by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. As stated above, the liability of the driver and owner was not in dispute since they had valid subsisting Insurance policy. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants states that the compensation should have been enhanced. She further submits that loss of future prospects should have been awarded at 50% and the compensation on the loss of consortium is not in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1. Lastly, it is her contention that the interest awarded at 6% per annum is also not in accordance with the settled legal provisions. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 8 13. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand fairly submits that loss of consortium should have been Rs.80,000/-. He further contends that future prospects have been awarded in terms of the settled law. 14. Based on the evidence and the documents produced, the question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal would require to be enhanced in any manner? 15. From perusal of the records, there is no challenge on the aspect of negligence. The only challenge is on the question to award 50% as future prospects. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case while discussing how the future prospects has been awarded at 50% in cases where the deceased is less than 40 years and has permanent job. The relevant extract is as below: “57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardisation, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 9 sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self- employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardisation on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree- test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 10 cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. xxx xxx xxx 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” [Emphasis Supplied] 16. Concededly, the deceased was working in Private Limited and the said establishment cannot be said to be a permanent establishment. As could be seen from the record, it is stated by the employer that the deceased was a permanent employee. However, he was getting a fixed salary. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 11 findings of the learned Tribunal in assessing 40% of future prospects on the income of the deceased. 17. So far as concerns of awarding compensation on loss of consortium, there are two dependants of the deceased, and awarding a sum of Rs.80,000/- is just and proper in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on all other aspects based on the settled principles of law and the same does not warrant interference by this Court. 18. 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 Others2, 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 2 2026 SCC Online Kar 4090 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 12 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.” 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 India3, 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 3 (2003) 3 SCC 148 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 13 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, 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] HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 14 xxx xxx xxx 19. The Supreme Court in Supe Dei (Smt) and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another4 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. 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. Mohan5 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 4 (2009) 4 SCC 513 5 (2018) 4 SCC 571 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 15 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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 21. The Supreme Court in Savita Devi & Ors. vs SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Others6 relying on the judgment in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.7 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 & Others8 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 6 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10053-10054/2024- order dated 02.09.2024 7 (2020) 4 SCC 228 8 2025 INSC 822 dated 14.07.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 16 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, 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 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 17 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 Others9 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 ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008- 9 2025 INSC 526 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 18 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 19 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.10, 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. 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. 10 (2019) INSC 217 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 20 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 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] 19. Perusal of records reflects that the claimants are wife and minor daughter of the deceased and he was the only breadwinner of the entire family. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled provision of law, this Court deems it fit to enhance the interest from 6% to 8% considering the present day scenario. To this extent, the award of the Tribunal requires to be recalculated in the following terms: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 01. Loss of Dependency 23,20,640/- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 21 02. Medical expenses 2,31,121/- 03. Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000x2) 80,000/- 04. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 05. Funeral and other expenses 15,000/- Total 26,61,761/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 26,21,761/- Enhanced compensation 40,000/- 20. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.26,61,761/- 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) The appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 19.01.2019 in M.V.C.No.1147/2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nanjangud is modified, enhancing the compensation by Rs.40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33557-DB MFA No.5443 of 2021 22 (iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest 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 appellants/ claimants on filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the amount in the proportion as was set out in the Impugned Award. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment and the records to the concerned Tribunal. (viii) 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.:16