- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2660 MFA No. 646 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ROJA W/O VENKATESH.M, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 2. MASTER VISHNU PRASAD.B.V S/O LATE.M.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, 3. MASTER NIRANJAN B.V S/O LATE. M.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, 4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2660 MFA No. 646 of 2025 RESIDING AT DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BETTAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 129. (THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER ROJA AS THE NATURAL GUARDIAN) 5. MR. VAMSHI KRISHNA KAVARTHAPU, NO.3/11, KRR NAGAR, PEDAPADUGUPADU, KOVUR, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 524 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1 (MOTHER); R5 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.06.12.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.5835/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACJM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-08), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.32,49,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2660 MFA No. 646 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 06.12.2024 passed in MVC No.5835/2023 on the file of the XII Additional Small Cause Judge and ACJM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-08). 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, one M Venkatesh, met with an accident on 29.07.2023. His mother, wife and children filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.32,49,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2660 MFA No. 646 of 2025 realisation. Being aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 4. It is stated that, deceased-M Venkatesh., was aged about 42 years, the Tribunal has taken future prospects as 40% instead of 25% and granted excessive compensation. The Tribunal has not deducted income tax and professional tax while calculating the loss of dependency and the amounts granted under the conventional heads are more than Rs.75,000/-. 5. It is further contended that the deceased-M. Venkatesh, was not wearing protective headgear, which resulted in head injury. Therefore, they are entitled for contributory negligence and have accordingly sought modification of the order. 6. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 42 years based on Ex.P.9, wherein his date of birth is shown as 04.03.1981, and has applied the multiplier of '14'. It is stated that the deceased was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2660 MFA No. 646 of 2025 working as an agriculturist/security and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, no evidence has been produced before the Tribunal to prove his income. 7. The deceased-M. Venkatesh, met with an accident in the year 2023. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken his notional income as Rs.16,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, and the same does not call for interference. 8. The petitioners are entitled to deduction of 1/4th towards the personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.25,20,000/- (Rs.16,000 + 25% × 12 × 14=33,60,000/- x 1/4th=8,40,000/-(33,60,000- 8,40,000)). The amounts granted by the Tribunal under the other heads are confirmed. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the following amount of compensation: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2660 MFA No. 646 of 2025 9. Hence, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.32,49,600/- to Rs.29,47,200/-. 10. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards loss of dependency 25,20,000/- 2 Towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 48,400/- 3 Towards loss of estate 18,150/- 4 Towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony charges 18,150/- 5 Towards loss of filial consortium to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 (each Rs.40,000/-) 1,20,000/- 6 Towards medical expenses 2,22,500/- Total 29,47,200/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2660 MFA No. 646 of 2025 ii. The judgment and award dated 06.12.2024 passed in MVC No.5835/2023 on the file of the XII Additional Small Cause Judge and ACJM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-08), is modified. iii. Appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the compensation amount before this Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. iv. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. v. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the MACT. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2660 MFA No. 646 of 2025 In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed of. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18