HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU M.F.A NO.5126 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SHANKAR K S/O LATE VAMAYYA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. PREEETHI GAURAV KUDROLI D/O SHANKAR K AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3. SHRUTHI D/O SHNAKAR K AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 4. NAGAMMA W/O LATE RAMAYYA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT D NO.6-38/31 SHANTHINAGARA, BADLA GUDDE ALAPE, PADIL, MANGALORE D K DISTRICT – 575 007 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MARCEL WILFRED BARNES S/O VICTOR BARNES AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT D NO.4-98 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 2 BARNES COMPOUND NR SRINIVAS COLLEGE ARKULA, FARANGIPETE MANGALURU D K DISTRICT – 574 143 2. THE DIVISONAL MANGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RASIK CHAMBERS OPP. CENTRAL MARKET HAMAPANAKATTA MANGALORE D K DISTRICT – 575 003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY/SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1460/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE & MACT, D K, MANGALURU AND CLAIM PETITION MAY BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR IN THIS APPEAL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 13.10.2021 passed in M.V.C. No.1460/2020, by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, D.K., Mangaluru [hereinafter HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 3 referred to as the "Impugned Award"]. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.19,15,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The challenge in the present appeal has been made by the appellants/claimants. 2. The brief facts are that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the "M.V. Act"], claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was filed by the appellants/claimants, pursuant to an accident which occurred on 14.09.2020. 2.1. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that on 14.09.2020 at about 08.45 a.m. the deceased Smt. Malathi was walking on the side of the National Highway No.66 main road. Then the rider of a Bullet Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19-EQ-2811 while driving in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 4 was admitted to the Father Muller's Hospital at Kankanady where she succumbed to her injuries on the same day. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation before the learned Tribunal on account of hospital medicine, ambulance charges, cremation and as well as on account of the fact that the appellants/ claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased for their livelihood. 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company alone. The owner of the vehicle/respondent No.1 remained absent, did not appear and was proceeded with ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “ 1. Whether petitioners prove that on 14.09.2020 at about 8.45 a.m., at Adyarkatte, the rider of the Bullet Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-19-EQ-2811 drove the same on N.H.66 from Farangipet towards Mangaluru in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased Smt.Malathi when she was walking on the side of the said road? HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 5 2. Whether petitioners prove that the deceased Smt.Malathi has sustained multiple grievous injuries in the said accident and died in the hospital while under the treatment? 3. Whether petitioners are entitle for compensation as claimed? 4. What order or award?” 5. The third petitioner was examined along with two other witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and produced 17 documents which were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company choose not to lead any evidence. 6. The learned Tribunal found that at the time of the accident the deceased was 48 years old and was in good health. The learned Tribunal also relied on the certificate (Ex.P.15) as well as three pay slips (Ex.P.17) to find that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.11,450/- per month from her employment. The learned Tribunal also found that on the basis of the notional income and since the accident was of the year 2020, the award was given. The learned Tribunal calculated the amount for loss of dependency after deduction of one fourth income. In HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 6 addition medical expenses, loss of consortium and funeral and other expenses were also given under various heads as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,74,562/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.10,960/- 3. Loss of consortium Rs.2,00,000/ - 4. Funeral and other expenses Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total Rounded Off to Rs.19,15,522/- Rs.19,15,500/- 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that she has only one ground of challenge in the present appeal. She submits that the 10% escalation as is the settled law was not granted by the learned Tribunal. 8. As stated above, the only issue raised in the present appeal is that 10% escalation on the non-conventional heads has not been provided for. The amount of escalation is usually to be provided in all cases as per the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 7 Corporation and another1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi.2 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company does not refute the same. 10. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is revised in the following manner: Sl.No Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,74,562/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.10,960/- 3. Loss of consortium Rs.2,20,000/- 4. Funeral and other expenses Rs.16,500/- 5. Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Total Rounded Off to Rs.19,38,522/ Rs.19,38,500/ Less Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.19,15,500/ Enhanced Compensation Rs.23,000/- 11. In view of the aforegoing, this Court deems apposite to pass the following: 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 8 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 13.10.2021 passed in M.V.C.No.1460/2020, by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, D.K., Mangaluru, is modified to the extent that the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.23,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to Rs.19,15,500/- that has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the learned Trial Court remains undisturbed. (iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of four weeks. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20587 MFA No. 5126 of 2022 9 (v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Trial Court. (viii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA