- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2872 OF 2020(MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2576 OF 2021(MV-D) IN MFA No. 2872/2020 BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 027 REP BY ITS MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANJINAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE K.V.MUDDHU RAMA REDDY 2. K.M.VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE K.V.MUDDHU RAMA REDDY, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KALAVARA VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DIST. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 3. 4. 5. SRI. SHAIK NAWAZ ALI S/O KHADER VALLI D.NO.12/207 AGARTHA STREET MADANAPALLE ANDHRA PRADESH-517 325 (RC OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.AP-03/TC-9789) ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE REGIONAL OFFICE NO.186/7, GROUND FLOOR RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX OPP: TO BLUE DOT COURIERS 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027 (COVER NOTE NO.MCNOO15248 VALID FROM 27.01.2017 TO 26.01.2018) HARI RAM GURJAR S/O S.H. RAM KARAN GURJAR VILLAGE RASOOLPURA POST JHARWASSA TECH, NASIRABAD-305 001 AJMER, RAJASTHAN (RC OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.RJ-01/GA-7925) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 10/12/2024, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.16.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1331/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,56,515/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT. IN MFA NO. 2576/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SMT ANJINAMMA W/O LATE K.V MUDDHURAMA REDDY NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SRI. K.M VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE K.V MUDDHURAMA REDDY, NOW AGED AOBUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KALAVARA VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHAIK NAWAZ ALI S/O KHADER ALI, MAJOR BY AGE, RESIDING AT NO 12/207, A GARTHA STREET, MADANAPALLE 517 325, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE REGIONAL OFFICE, NO 186/7, GROUND FLOOR, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX OPP: BLUE DOT COURIES, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027 BY ITS MANAGER 3. HARI RAM GURJAR S/O S.H RAMKARAN, MAJOR BY AGE, RESIDING AT GURJAR VILLAGE, RASOOLPURA POST, JHARWASSA TECH, NASIRABAD-305 001, AJMER, RAJASTHAN 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 027 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4, VIDE ORDER DATED 01/02/2024, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH, SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.16.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1331/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MAC-7, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals are arising out of judgment and award dated 16.07.2019 in MVC No.1331/2018 by the Court of IX Addl. Small Causes and Addl. MACT., Bangalore, (SCCH-17) (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.17,56,515/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are, on 23.10.2017, the deceased K.V. Muddu Rama Reddy was travelling in a hired lorry bearing registration No.AP-03-TC-9789 driven by its driver along with bricks making materials i.e., stones and coal from Hyderabad to Bangalore in NH-44. When they reached near Dhobi Gate, SKDY Junction, Penugonda Mandal, Andhra Pradesh, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the said lorry dashed against another lorry bearing registration No.RJ-01-GA-7925 which was stationed by the side of road by its driver without taking any precautionary measures. As a result, K.V. Muddu Rama Reddy sustained injuries and succumbed on the spot. Thereafter, the legal representatives of - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the accidental death of K. V. Muddu Rama Reddy. 3. The Tribunal, upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation as stated supra. The said award is challenged by the Insurance Company in MFA No.2872/2020 and by the claimants in MFA No.2576/2021. 4. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsels for the respective Insurance Companies. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company primarily contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred by attributing 50% negligence on the drivers of both the vehicles. According to him, the offending lorry was stationed on the extreme left side of the highway and the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was traveling, without observing the vehicle parked ahead, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the offending lorry. By placing reliance on Ex.P5-sketch he contented that the offending lorry was parked on the extreme left side and there - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 was sufficient space for other vehicles to pass through the right side of the said road. In such circumstances, the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was traveling. Hence, the Tribunal has erred by attributing 50% negligence on the drivers of both the vehicles. 6. Notwithstanding the said contention, he also contended that the Tribunal was erred in applying wrong multiplier of '7'. According to him, the deceased was aged about 65 years 10 months 22 days as per Ex.P7-PAN card of the deceased. In such circumstance, since he crossed the age of 65 years, appropriate multiplier would be '5'. He also contented that the Tribunal was erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,53,290/- per annum without considering the average income of the deceased for 3 years as per Income Tax returns. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by dismissing the appeal filed by the claimants. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal was justified in attributing 50% - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 negligence on the drivers of both the vehicles. According to him, the driver of the offending lorry unauthorizedly parked the lorry in the National Highway, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 122 of Motor Vehicles Act. He also contended that, at the time of parking, the said lorry was stationed without any indicator or parking signals. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in attributing 50% negligence on both the drivers of the vehicles. It is further contented that, as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.4378/2023 c/w MFA No.3047/2023, the Tribunal is justified in taking multiplier at '7', since the deceased was not crossed the age of 66 years. He also contended that the Tribunal is not justified in deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses, since the claimants are the wife and son. Further, he fairly submits that the income of the deceased could be considered by taking average of 3 years Income Tax returns of the deceased. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the claimants and to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-03-TC-9789 supported the findings of the Tribunal. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and award so also the other documents made available before this Court. 10. As could be gathered from records, the accident in question and coverage of insurance policy to the offending lorry are not in dispute. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in respect of negligence on the part of the driver of lorry in which the deceased was travelling is concerned, on careful perusal of Ex.P5-sketch, the offending lorry was stationed in NH-44 and the lorry in which the deceased was travelling was came from Hyderabad towards Bangalore on the extreme left side by following traffic rules. Admittedly, the accident was caused at about 08:00 p.m. during night hours. Since there was no parking light or signals were turned on by the offending lorry, there is every possibility of the driver had no opportunity of observing the vehicle - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 parked ahead. In such circumstances, it could be presumed that the driver of the lorry in which the deceased was traveling dashed the offending lorry due to unavoidable circumstances. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in attributing 50% negligence on the driver of both the vehicles. In my considered view, the said finding of the Tribunal does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 11. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal was erred in taking wrong multiplier of '7' instead of '5' is concerned, as per the documents i.e., Aadhaar card and PAN card of the deceased, the age of deceased could be seen as 65 years 10 months 22 days. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment held in paragraph No.15 as under: "15. Admittedly, the date of birth of the deceased is 30.01.1970 and as on the date of accident she was aged about 50 years 57 days. However, she had not attained the age of 51 years so as to apply multiplier of '11'. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Samsun Bee and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2026 ACJ 532 has held that higher multiplier continues to apply till deceased completes entry into next age bracket and it does - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 not shift merely upon crossing threshold age. The relevant paragraph Nos.4 and 9 reads as follows: "4. The Tribunal, vide its award, held the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 herein, to be jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,56,600/- to the claimant-appellants herein along with interest @ 7% per annum. The monthly income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.150/- per day, which comes to Rs.4,500/- per month, on a notional basis, in the absence of any other evidence on record. In accordance with settled principles of law laid down in National Insurance Company v. Praney Sethi, a deduction of 1/5th of his income was made considering eight dependants. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 45 years 3 months, relying upon the marksheet P.P. 14 and came to the conclusion that the deceased was older than 45 years and younger than 50 years at the time of accident and applied the multiplier of 13. Moreover, different amounts were awarded towards conventional heads, as per law. 5. XXX 6. XXX 7. XXX 8. XXX 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). - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 “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 (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 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 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 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 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." 12. On bare reading of the above judgment, the findings of the Division Bench of this Court in the above judgment squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the instant case also, though the deceased had crossed 65 years, he had not attained the age of 66 years at - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 the time of accident. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the Tribunal is justified in taking the multiplier as '7'. 13. As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,53,290/- per annum. Admittedly, the Tribunal has not taken the average income of the deceased, though the claimants have produced the Income Tax returns of the deceased for a period of 3 years. In such circumstance, the Tribunal ought to have considered the average income of the deceased for the year 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 i.e., Rs.3,67,763/- rounded off to Rs.3,68,000/-. 14. The Tribunal also erred while deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The claimant No.1 is the wife of deceased and claimant No.2 is the son of deceased. In such circumstances, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased i.e., Rs.2,45,334/- (3,68,000 x 2/3). Thus, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.17,17,338/- (2,45,334 x 7). - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 15. The claimants, being the wife and son of the deceased, they would each 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”. 16. 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 17,17,338 2. Loss of Consortium 96,800 3. Conventional Heads 36,300 Total 18,50,438 17. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.18,50,438/- as against Rs.17,56,515/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 18. The findings of the Tribunal in respect of deposit of compensation by the respective Insurance Companies remain undisturbed and they are directed to deposit the amount of - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010024642020 NC: 2026:KHC:39399 MFA No. 2872 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2576 of 2021 compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 19. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3