- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4334 OF 2026 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARVEEN TAJ W/O LATE MOHAMMED AJAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. KUM. AMREEN TAJ D/O LATE MOHAMMED AJAM, NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 3. SRI. SAMEER PASHA S/O LATE MOHAMMED AJAM, NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HUSAIN SABARAPALYA VILLAGE, KITHNAMANGALA POST, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 131. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O JAYAPPA, MAJOR (AGE OF R-1 NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANTS) R/AT BEEMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, THUREBAILU, CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 520. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 734, 14TH CROSS, 33RD MAIN, 1ST PHASE, J. P. NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 001, BY ITS MANGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.06.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.2985/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU., 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 SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in Judgment and Award dated 03.11.2025 passed in MVC No.2985/2024 by - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-24). 2. Even though the matter is listed today for order/admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer, the matter is taken up for disposal. 3. The appellants/claimants made a claim petition seeking for award of compensation for the death of Sadiq Pasha (son of claimant No.1 and brother of claimant Nos.2 and 3) in a road traffic accident occurred on 27.03.2024 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA-16-AA-4265. 4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and upon appreciating the evidence on record, assessed the compensation and awarded the compensation under various heads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Transportation and Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/- 2. Loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- 3. Loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium (Rs.48,400 X 3) Rs. 1,45,200/- 4. Loss of Dependency Rs. 22,17,600/- Total Rs. 23,99,100/- 5. The Tribunal has also awarded the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed respondent No.2/insurer to deposit the award amount with interest. The claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that, the date of birth of the deceased as per Ex.P7 - Aadhar card is 14.07.1993 and as on the date of accident i.e., 27.03.2024, the deceased was aged 30 years 08 months. The Tribunal has taken the age of the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 deceased as 31 years. The completed age of the deceased is to be taken and therefore, the age of the deceased is to be taken as 30 years. 8. He further submits that, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income, added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged 30 years 08 months, the multiplier applicable is '17' as against '16' taken by the Tribunal. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer would contend that, since, the deceased was aged 30 years 08 months, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of deceased as 31 years. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there are no grounds for enhancement. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 10. Having heard both the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer, the Court has perused the Judgment and Award. 11. The Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- and added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased since the deceased was a bachelor. The Tribunal has applied multiplier '16' considering the age of the deceased as 31 years. Ex.P7 - Aadhar card of the deceased and date of birth of the deceased mentioned is 14.07.1993 and the accident has taken placed on 27.03.2024 and as on that date, the deceased was aged 30 years 08 months. The completed age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for applying multiplier. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SAMSUN BEE AND OTHERS vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD AND OTHERS (2026 ACJ 532) had considered the said aspect wherein observed as under: - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 “9. On the aspect of multiplier, both the Tribunal and the High Court applied it to be 13. As already observed supra the age was determined as 45 years and 3 months on the basis of marksheet. The question that arises is whether the multiplier to be applied will be 13 or 14, given the categorisation made in Sarla Verma (Supra). The same is reproduced as under for reference, as approved in Pranay Sethi (Supra). “42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in para 19 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 42 is extracted below : (Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 140) “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 9776 of 2025 Page 5 of 12 (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 362] and Charlie [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” As can be seen from the above the multiplier of 14 is to be applied when the age of the deceased person is falls within 41 to 45 and multiplier of 13 is to be applied when the age of the deceased person is between 46 and 50. In this case, the age is categorically recorded as been 45 years and 3 months. The question then is whether the higher multiplier would continue to apply till the person has clearly entered into the next age bracket i.e., 46 to 50 or, would the lower multiplier be applied immediately after the day, that the deceased person crosses the threshold of 45 for instance as in the present case. In our considered view, the former is the correct approach. We say so for the reason that, in general parlance when age is described or discussed, the higher number is addressed only when the person attains that particular age. That - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 apart, legally speaking the age is a crucial aspect that has to be taken into account when the Tribunal or higher appellate authorities are tasked with determining the possibilities of future earning of the deceased person. The higher the age the lesser the multiplier. Therefore, keeping in view the overarching principle of just and fair compensation which is to inform each and every computation, application of a lower multiplier right at the higher threshold of the previous one, it has to be held the same would be impermissible. In other words, the high limit of the previous multiplier would be inclusive of the 12 months’ time, till the age of the deceased person is squarely within the lower limit of the next bracket. To illustrate, in case where the age of the deceased person or injured person, is 35 years 11 months, then the multiplier of 16 would apply, instead of 15. The later would only apply once the injured/deceased has positively crossed the age of 36 years, for example if he was aged 36 years and 3 days. In view of the above decision, the completed age of the deceased is to be taken. In view of the age of the deceased now taken as 30 years, the multiplier applicable - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 is '17'. In view of the same, loss of dependency is calculated as under: 16,500 + 40% (6,600) = 23,100 - 50% = 11,550 X 12 X 17 = 23,56,200/-. 12. Considering all the above aspects, the claimants are entitled to total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Transportation and Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/- 2. Loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- 3. Loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium (Rs.48,400 X 3) Rs. 1,45,200/- 4. Loss of Dependency Rs. 23,56,200/- Total Rs. 25,37,700/- 13. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.25,37,700/- as against Rs.23,99,100/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 14. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,38,600/- (25,37,700 - 23,99,100) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 15. Respondent No.2/insurer is liable to pay enhanced compensation amount with interest. 16. In view of the above, the following: ORDER i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed-in- part. ii) The appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,38,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. iii) Respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from this day, failing which, it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394612026 NC: 2026:KHC:36427 MFA No. 4334 of 2026 per annum from this day till date of payment. iv) The entire enhanced compensation shall be released to appellant No.1/claimant No.1 since she is the mother of deceased. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32