- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: SRI KHALID S/O LATE SRI MILLATH SHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O PAHKIER BEEDI DANTARAMAKKI EXTENSION JYOTHINAGAR POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 102 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI DILEEPA N.M S/O SRI MULLE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NEETEKEREHALLI VILLAGE, KURUVANGI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 2. SRI PUTTASWAMY H.C S/O SRI CHANDRAIH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O HIREKOLALE VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 3. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE R.G.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 4. SRI RAMESHA N.C S/O SRI CHANDRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O NETTEKEREHALLI VILLAGE KURUVANGI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 16.04.2025, APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AGAINST FOR R1 & R2, NOTICE DISPENSED WITH R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.23.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.81/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER, MACT, CHIKKAMGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 23.06.2020 in MVC.No.81/2019 for the accidental death of Mastana Bee. 2. It is not in dispute that as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 19.01.2018, Mastana Bee, 65 years 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 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 Mastana Bee. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Medical expenses and hospital charges 12,000 2. Attendant charges 8,000 3. Food and nourishment 10,000 4. Conveyance charges 10,000 5. Loss of love and affection 15,000 6. Loss of estate 30,000 7. Transportation and funeral expenses 15,000 Total 1,00,000 5. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of dependency and has also erred in awarding meagre compensation under all the heads. As such, the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 same requires interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he would pray for allowing of the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation towards loss of dependency since the claimant is the major son of deceased and he was not financially dependent on the deceased. Accordingly, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. 10. As could be gathered from records, the claimant is the major son of deceased and based on that the Tribunal has not awarded any sums towards loss of dependency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. SANJAY PRASAD - 2025 Supreme (Online) Supreme Court 5470, referring to the judgments in SEEMA RANI & OTHERS VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS - 2025 SCC Online Supreme Court 283 and - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. BIRENDER - (2017) 16 SCC 680, has awarded loss of dependency based on the exposition of law in Birender's case, wherein it was observed as under: "It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only." Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under loss of dependency. However, since he is major, 50% requires to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 11. As regards the income of the deceased, since there is no credible evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2018, would be Rs.12,500/-. 12. Since the deceased was aged 65 years old, no future prospects is to be added. 13. As held above, 50% requires to be deducted towards personal expenses, which would result in the income to be Rs.6,250/- (12,500/- - 50%). The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.6,250/-. 14. As the deceased was aged 65 years, a multiplier of '7' would have to be applied. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 15. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- (Rs.6,250 x 12 x 7) towards “loss of dependency”. 16. The claimant, being son of the deceased, he would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” and he would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads”. 17. The sum awarded as medical expenses at Rs.12,000/- being based on the documentary evidence, do not call for modification and hence confirmed. 18. 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 5,25,000 2. Loss of Consortium 48,400 3. Conventional Heads 36,300 4. Medical expenses 12,000 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010240952020 NC: 2026:KHC:46616 MFA No. 1304 of 2021 Total 6,21,700 19. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.6,21,700/- as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 20. 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. 21. 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.: 6