HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 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.1836 OF 2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.MOHAN S/O LATE SRI. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. SMT. MANGALA W/O SRI. K MOHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. JAYAMMA W/O LATE SRI. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAMPLAPURA VILLAGE PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 3 571 107 &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ANANDA S/O SRI. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT #994, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, GOKULAM MYSURU DISTRICT 3 570 007 2. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE SRI. CHIKKAMALLEGOWDA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 2 AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT #994, 8TH MAIN ROAD 3RD STAGE, GOKULAM MYSURU DISTRICT 3 570 002 3. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.2951 2ND FLOOR, JLB ROAD CHAMUNDIPURAM NEAR CHAMUNDIPURAM CIRCLE MYSURU 3 570 004 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PUTTARAJA C P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. LOKESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ENHANCEMENT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1628/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A & B AND ALLOW THE CLAIMS PETITION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIMS PETITION OR SUCH OTHER AMOUNT WITH INTEREST AND COURT COSTS AS THIS HON9BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, PROPER AND APPROPRIATE AND ETC THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 3 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 25.11.2019 passed in M.V.C. No.1628/2018, by the learned VII Additional District Judge and Member, MACT, Mysuru, [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Award"]. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.14,93,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 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.96,95,000/- was filed by the appellants/claimants, pursuant to an accident which occurred on 29.09.2018. 2.1. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. On 29.09.2018 at about 5.45 a.m. the deceased was going towards Mysuru HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 4 Railway Station riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 01-HN-8935 along with the pillion rider. Then the driver of a car bearing registration No.KA-09-MD-8642 turned the car without any signal and collided in the vehicle of the deceased. The deceased and the pillion rider fell down, both sustained injuries. The deceased succumbed to his injuries while taking treatment in the hospital. The appellants/claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company claiming compensation. 3. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the learned Tribunal, however did not contested the case nor did they file any written statement. The matter was contested only by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company who denied all allegations in the claim petition. 4. The learned Tribunal after examining the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 5 < 1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased K.M.Raghu? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that on 29.09.2018 at about 05.45 a.m., when the deceased was going towards Mysuru Railway Station near Metropole Circle riding his Hero Honda Passion bike bearing No.,- 01 HN 8935 at that time driver of the Car bearing No.KA 09 MD 8642 had suddenly turned the Car without giving any signal in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the said bike due to which deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 4. What order or award?= 4.1. The learned Tribunal found that the negligence was proved in the matter. It also found that there was no breach in the insurance policy. Relying on the evidence of PW-1 (petitioner No.1) as well as on the FIR (Ex.P.1), complaint (Ex.P.2), spot mahazar (Ex.P.4) and IMV report (Ex.P.7) found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. 4.2. The learned Tribunal also found that the age of the deceased as per the post mortem report at Ex.P.9 and the inquest report at Ex.P.8 is 19 years and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 6 another1 the multiplier will be taken as '18'. The learned Tribunal however awarded notional income in a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal thus awarded compensation to the appellants/claimants under the following heads of compensation which was rounded off to Rs.14.93 lakhs along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,60,800/- 2. Medical and conveyance expenses Rs.36,844/- 3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of love and affection Rs.25,000/- 6. Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.14,92,644/- 5. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has raised two grounds of challenge. Firstly, he submits that the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- when the notional income for the year 2018 is Rs.12,500/-. Secondly, he submits that given the settled 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 7 law the interest awarded at 6% should be enhanced to 9%. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company fairly submits that the notional income for the year 2018 was Rs.12,500/-. However, on the aspect of interest she submits that the interest awarded is what is <usually awarded= by the learned Tribunal. 7. After examining the record, the issue that arises before this Court is, "whether the compensation is required to be enhanced, in the facts and circumstances of this case?" 8. As stated above, it is not disputed that the loss of dependency was to be calculated based on the notional income of Rs.12,500/-. The loss of dependency should be calculated in the following manner: Heads Amount Loss of dependency 12,500 x 40% = 5,000/- 12,500+5,000 = 17,500/- 17,500/- /2 = Rs.8,750/- (8,750/- to be considered after deducting 50% towards personal expenses) Rs.8,750/-x12x18= Rs.18,90,000- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 8 9. In addition, the escalation of 10% for funeral expenses and loss of estate is required to be taken into consideration. Since there are two claimants, the amounts to be paid for loss of consortium should be Rs.48,000/- per member in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2 (Rs.48,000/-x2 = Rs.96,000/-). 10. Accordingly, the award of the learned Tribunal is reassessed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.18,90,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.16,844/- 3. Conveyance expenses Rs.20,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- 5. Loss of estate Rs.18,000/- 6. Filial Consortium (48,000 x 2) Rs.96,000/- Total Rs.20,58,844/- Less awarded by the Tribunal Rs.14,93,000/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.5,65,844 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 9 11. In view of the aforegoing, this Court deems apposite to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.11.2019 passed in M.V.C.No.1628/2018, by the learned VII Additional District Judge and Member, MACT, Mysuru, is modified to the extent that the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,65,844/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to Rs.14,93,000/- that has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the learned Trial Court remains undisturbed. (iv) The respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20592 MFA No. 1836 of 2021 10 interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks. (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.: 22 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA