- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7102 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIJAYA LAKSHMI W/O. BALAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SHRI. CHIRAG B SHETTY S/O. BALAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT #3/53/A, PALLATHILA HOUSE, BARIMAR POST MANI, BANTWAL TLAUK, D.K. DISTIRCT, PIN - 574 253. …APPELLANTS (BY MS. POOJA PARVATHI U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PRABHAVATHI H., W/O. NARAYANA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 RESIDING AT MDAKA HOUSE UBARADKKA MITHOOR SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT PIN - 574 239 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PRABHU BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO ARUNA TALKIES MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR, SOUTH KANARA D.K. DISTRICT PIN - 574 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE DIVISIONAL MANAGER SALDHANA BUILDING BRIDGE ROAD, BALMATTA, MANGALURU TALUK D.K DISTRICT - 575 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/C/O DATED 14.07.2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2022 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.612/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-IV, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, 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: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is filed seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.612/2021 vide judgment and award dated 26.07.2022 for the accidental death of one Balakrishna Shetty. 2. It is not in dispute that, as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.02.2021, Balakrishna Shetty, a 55 year old died. 3. It is not in dispute that the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle was insured. 4. The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident which has resulted in the death of Balakrishna Shetty. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 12,67,200 2. Loss of consortium 80,000 3. Loss of love and affection 1,00,000 4. Towards Conventional Heads 30,000 Total 14,77,200 5. In order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.16,000/- based on the Bank statements and record of rights of the deceased Balakrishna. As such, the Tribunal is justified in determining the income at Rs.16,000/- per month. 6. Since the deceased was aged 55 years and he was agriculturalist, 10% requires to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, which would result in the income to be Rs.17,600/-. 7. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, his monthly income would be Rs.11,733/- (17,600 - 1/3rd). The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.11,733/-. 8. The Tribunal has erred in adopting multiplier '9' even though the deceased was not completed the age of 56 years as on the date of accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2026 ACJ 532 in the case of SAMSUN BEE AND OTHERS v/s UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS, categorically stated that though the deceased had crossed 45 years of age, he had not attained the age of 46 years, then '14' multiplier has to be adopted. Relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 reads as follows: "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 9 of Sarla Verma read with para 21 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 21 is extracted below : (21). We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 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. 10. This view would further the (sic) object and purpose of Motor Vehicle Act which is undoubtedly a beneficial legislation. In K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob (2020) 14 SCC 126, the law was succinctly stated as follows: “11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed with a purpose-oriented approach. [Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341]. The Act should receive a liberal construction to promote its objects. [Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 573 and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] Also, literal construction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation has to be avoided. It is the court's duty to discern the intention of the legislature in making the law. Once such an intention is ascertained, the statute should receive a purposeful or functional interpretation [Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2 SCC 614 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 335]. … xxx xxx xxx - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 (13) While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief that the statute was designed to remedy should first be identified and then a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy should be adopted. [Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 55] It is settled law that exemption clauses in beneficial or social welfare legislations should be given strict construction [Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588] . It was observed in Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik [Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588] that the exclusionary provisions in a beneficial legislation should be construed strictly so as to give a wide amplitude to the principal object of the legislation and to prevent its evasion on deceptive grounds. Similarly, in Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council [Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council, 2008 HCA 48 : (2008) 237 CLR 285] , Kirby, J. held that the principle of providing purposive construction to beneficial legislations mandates that exceptions in such legislations should be construed narrowly.” 9. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and considering that the deceased had not completed 56 years of age as on the date of the accident in the instant case, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '11'. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 10. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,48,756/- (11,733 x 12 x 11) towards “loss of dependency”. 11. The claimants, being the wife and son of the deceased, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.96,800/- (48,400 x 2) and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. 12. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 15,48,756 2. Loss of Consortium 96,800 3. Conventional Heads 36,300 Total 16,81,856 13. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.16,81,856/- as against Rs.14,77,200/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35846 MFA No. 7102 of 2022 awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 14. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and shall thereafter recover the same from the insured. 15. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20