- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5266 MFA No. 6033 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6033 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SHANTAMMA W/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. RANGAPPA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. RADHA K R D/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 4. MANJUNATH K R S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 5. PANDURANGA K R S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING MANCHENAHALLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 208. NOW ALL ARE RESIDING AT SATHYAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA TUMAKRUU TALUKU Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5266 MFA No. 6033 of 2024 AND DISTRICT - 577 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN DODDABASAVARAJAPPA RYAKHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O VARAVANI VILLAGE AT POST MACHENAHALLI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 208 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER CHOLA M/. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OFFICE AT UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR 59TH C CROSS, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX 4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.09.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.572/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5266 MFA No. 6033 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 23.06.2023 passed in MVC No.572/2022 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge and Member, MACT, Tumakuru, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, one Ramesh K. R. met with an accident on 15.03.2022 and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. His parents, brothers and sister filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted a sum of Rs.22,15,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5266 MFA No. 6033 of 2024 Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 4. It is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal has taken his income at only Rs.15,500/- per month. It is further contended that the amounts awarded under the other heads are meagre and the Tribunal erred in deducting 50% towards personal expenses. Therefore, they requested for modification of the order. 5. Admittedly, the claimants have not filed any income proof of the deceased. As the accident occurred in the year 2022, the Tribunal has rightly assessed his notional income at Rs.15,500/- per month. The Tribunal has taken age of the deceased is 35 years and the multiplier is ‘16’. Accordingly, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects and 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,88,000/- towards loss of dependency. It has also granted Rs.96,000/- towards filial consortium to the parents-petitioner Nos.1 and 2, Rs.5,95,200 towards future prospectus and Rs.36,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5266 MFA No. 6033 of 2024 the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.22,15,200/-. 6. As the Tribunal has considered all the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and granted a reasonable amount, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The insurance company has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same in terms of the apportionment made by the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59