- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2612 MFA No. 2118 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2118 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIJAYA @ VIJI @ VIJAYAMMA W/O LATE SELVARAJ @ CHELUVARAJ AGED 45 YEARS 2. SRI. RAJU S S/O LATE SELVARAJ @ CHELUVARAJ AGED 29 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.163 2ND MAIN ROAD NANJUNDESWARANAGARA NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NITHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NEW INDIA ASS.CO.LTD. MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, NO. 9/2, 2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SRI. SIDDARAMU Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2612 MFA No. 2118 of 2022 S/O SIDDALINGAIAH MAJOR, R/AT 7, RCC 206-261 SG MUTT ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY N.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUDHAKAR REDDY S.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.01.2026, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3855/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IX C/c ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2612 MFA No. 2118 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ms. Nithya who represents Sri. Prakash M.H learned counsel on record for the appellants as well as Sri. Mallikarjun Reddy who represents Sri. Sudhakar Reddy S.V learned counsel on record for respondent No.1. 2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore through orders in MVC No. 3855/2014, dated 03.08.2021 claimant Nos. 1 and 2 therein preferred the present appeal. 3. The undisputed fact is that the deceased Selvaraj, (hereinafter be referred to as the deceased for the brevity) who is the husband of the first appellant, died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2014. As per the version of the claimants, the deceased was working as Supervisor in an organization by name Gandhi Cranes and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. However, the tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2612 MFA No. 2118 of 2022 per month. Arguing on this aspect, learned counsel for the appellants submits that by producing Ex.P-8 Salary Certificate appellants established the occupation of the deceased. But without considering the same, the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month and thereby awarded very meager sum as compensation towards loss of dependency. Learned counsel seeks to take the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- per month. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel who represents respondent No.1 states that the appellants failed to establish the genuineness of Ex.P-8 and thereby they failed to establish the occupation and earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident and hence the tribunal rightly took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. 5. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the appellants contend that the accident occurred in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2612 MFA No. 2118 of 2022 the year 2014 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.8,500/- per month for settlement of claims and at least said figure should have been considered by the tribunal. 6. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1, appellants failed to establish the genuineness of Ex.P-8 Salary Certificate. Also they failed to establish the occupation and earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident. However considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the view that the notional monthly income of the deceased is required to be taken as Rs.8,500/- per month. This Court also observes that the Tribunal failed to add future prospects. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged around 55 years as on the date of accident. Hence, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2612 MFA No. 2118 of 2022 case, 10% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. Thus, adding 10% of the earnings towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive and applying the appropriate multiplier '11', the compensation which the claimants are entitled to under the head loss of dependency is as under:- Heads Amount in Rs. Notional monthly income 8,500.00 Annual income 1,02,000.00 On adding 10% towards future prospects 1,12,200.00 On deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses 74,800.00 Loss of dependency on applying appropriate multiplier '11' 8,22,800.00 7. Thus, it is clear that the amount which is required to be granted towards loss of dependency is Rs.8,22,800/- However, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- only towards loss of dependency. Thus, the first appellant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2612 MFA No. 2118 of 2022 is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,94,800 (8,22,800 - 5,28,000) in addition to the sum that is awarded by the tribunal towards loss of dependency. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, through orders in MVC No.3855/2014 dated 03.08.2021 is enhanced by Rs.2,94,800/-. iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2612 MFA No. 2118 of 2022 v. On such deposit, the first appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4