- 1 - RESERVED ON : 25.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 14.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8421 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE LEGAL MANAGER, SHRIRAM GIC LTD., R/AT, 2ND FLOOR, CH-66-2904/1, SAPTHASWARA COMPLEX, OPP. TO RELIANCE HOME FINANCE, KANTHARAJA URS ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, SHRIRAM GIC LTD, NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S V ARCADE, BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF. B.G. ROAD, IIMB POST, BENGALURU – 560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHADEV M., S/O MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK. - 2 - 2. SMT. ROOPA, W/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.489, TALAGAVADI VILLAGE, KIRUGAVALU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT AND NO.193, NEETHI MARGA, SIDDARTHANAGARA, MYSURU. 3. MOHAN KUMAR M.B., S/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BEEDANAHALI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, 4. HONNAPPA K.M., S/O PATEL MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.31 BANNUR EXTENSION, SUBHASH NAGARA, MANDYA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, V/O DATED 17.4.2025 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.05.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.708/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.12,58,472/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, T.M.NADAF,J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is by the insurer, calling in question the judgment and award dated 30.05.2022 in MVC.No.708/2020 passed by IV Additional District Judge and MACT, Mysuru, only on the ground of quantum. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Smt. Nagamma and liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation. 3. Heard Sri.Pradeep. B, learned counsel appearing for appellant-insurer and Sri.Shridhara. K, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2- claimants. Respondent No.3 though served unrepresented. Vide order dated 17.04.2025, notice to respondent No. 4 is dispensed with. 4. Sri.Pradeep.B submits mainly on three grounds: (a) The claimants i.e., son and daughter of deceased are major; claimant No.1-son is working as driver so also doing agriculture. The - 4 - claimant No.2 is daughter married earlier to the accident and residing with her husband in her matrimonial home. Both the claimants are self- reliant and as such both cannot be termed as dependent on the deceased. (b) Secondly, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal income. Since both the claimants being major, are not entitled for loss of dependency rather are entitled for loss of estate. (c) Thirdly, the Tribunal in the absence of proof of income has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.14,500/- per month and having considered the age as 60 years in terms of PM report, despite added 10% towards future prospectus which is against the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 5 - 5. With these Sri.Pradeep.B submits that the award be modified and compensation be suitably reduced, on the premise that the compensation to be awarded shall not result in a bounty. 6. Assailing the contentions of learned counsel for appellant-insurer, Sri.Shridhara. K vehemently submits that as per Section 166 of MV Act, the persons entitled to claim compensation in case of death are the legal representatives of the deceased. The income by the mother, in Indian system of family, would be an income generated for the betterment of the family to meet all the future expenses of the family consisting of children, grandchildren, for their education and other unseen expenses. The Tribunal in this background considering the age of the deceased and her avocation as stated by the claimants before the Tribunal (i.e., she was working in Sri.Annapoorneshwari Agro Rice Mill and earning Rs.15,000/-) considered the income at Rs.14,500. Taking into consideration the age being 60 years as on the date of accident as per the PM report, added 10%, which is as per - 6 - the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi supra, and deducted personal expenses looking to the number of claimants at 1/3rd and awarded appropriate compensation which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court and sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. In reply to the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the claimants, Sri.Pradeep. B submits that though the word used in Section 166 is legal representatives, but to claim compensation for death, the parties must prove the dependency on the income of the deceased. Both the claimants are major, as son is working as driver and daughter married prior to accident and leading marital life with her husband at matrimonial home. Both are self-reliant and not dependent on the income of the deceased and this fact is not seriously denied. 8. To buttress his argument Sri.Pradeep. B refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7199/2025 in the case of Jitender Kumar and Another Vs. Sanjay Prasad and others, and submit that the major children cannot be considered as - 7 - dependants, but they can claim compensation being legal representatives. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case had observed that the personal expenses to be deducted is at 50% as the claimants were not dependent on the deceased. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as the trial Court record, the only point that requires for consideration before this Court is: “Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation of Rs.12,58,472/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum?” 10. My answer to the above point for consideration is partly in affirmative for the following: REASONS 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 60 years age as on the date of accident, as per the PM report. The Hon‘ble Apex Court, in Pranay Sethi supra, at paragraph No.61(iv) so far as adding income towards future prospectus with respect to self-employed persons held as under: - 8 - “(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” The said paragraph indicates that the person must be below the age of 60 years for consideration of adding future prospectus. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 60 years. In these circumstances, since the deceased was aged 60 years as on the date of death, there cannot be any addition of future prospectus to the existing income taken by the Tribunal. 12. There is nothing on record placed by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased, except saying that she was working in Sri.Annapoorneshwari Agro Rice Mill. The documents produced by the claimants does not give any indication regarding the income of the deceased. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka - 9 - Legal Service Authorities, while settling the claims before the Lok Adalath, a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month is fixed to the corresponding year i.e., 2019 as income with respect to unskilled labour. In the absence of any document regarding income, the Tribunal must have considered the said income at Rs.14,000/- instead of Rs.14,500/-. Accordingly the appellant-insurer succeeded both on income as well as addition considered by the Tribunal. 13. So far as deduction is concerned, as rightly argued by Sri.Pradeep.B, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, both the claimants are major as on the date of accident i.e., death of the deceased and self-reliant and they are not dependent on the income of deceased. But it cannot be lost sight that they are legal representatives as contemplated under Section 166 of MV Act. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jitender Kumar supra, the claimants although may not be entitled to be the dependents on the deceased, but are entitled to receive compensation as legal representatives. Though the claimants may not be dependent, but the income of the - 10 - deceased is lost to the family, as the same is also a source of income to the entire family, which could be saved and used in future either for the educational purpose of the children of the family or for unforeseen event. Considering these aspects of the matter if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses, the same would meet the ends of justice. In this regard, the appellant-insurer succeeded on this point also. 14. The Tribunal has committed serious error in not noticing these aspects of the matter. In these circumstances, judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires reconsideration and re-determination. Since, re-determination is to be done in the above case, though the claimants have not preferred any appeal, they are entitled for 10% escalation on compensation awarded under the conventional heads as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi stated Supra. 15. On re-determination and reconsideration the appellant is entitled for the following compensation: - 11 - Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 11,48,472-00 [4,500x12x9x2/3] 7,56,000-00 [14,000x12x9x50%] 2. Loss of consortium [Rs.40,000 x 2] 80,000-00 80,000-00 3. Loss of estate 15,000-00 15,000-00 4. Funeral expenses and transportation charges 15,000-00 15,000-00 5. 10% escalation for two completed three years term on conventional heads [Rs.40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 x 20] - 22,000-00 TOTAL 12,58,472/- 8,88,000/- 16. Accordingly, claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for reduced compensation of a sum of Rs.8,88,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum as against Rs.12,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; - 12 - ii) The judgment and award dated 30.05.2022 in MVC No.708/2020 passed by IV Additional District Judge and MACT, Mysuru is modified and reduced; iii) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for reduced compensation of Rs.8,88,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. iv) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. v) The appellant-insurer shall deposit the balance reduced compensation along with accrued interest supra within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. vi) Upon deposit, entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimants on proper identification. vii) The trial Court record shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal without causing any delay. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR ct-vn