- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1985 MFA No. 8606 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8606 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYASHEELA W/O NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SRI. NARAYANA S/O THUTTEGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: 3rd CROSS, VIDYA NAGARA, MANDYA CITY - 571 401 &APPELLANTS (BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B. M. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO. 908, LIG -2 LAKSHMI KANTHA NAGAR Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1985 MFA No. 8606 of 2022 Ist STAGE, HEBBAL MYSORE - 17. 2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTER OPPOSITE TO KSRTC BUS STAND MYSORE - 17 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/C/O. DATED 13.03.2023, NOTICE3 TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2140/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1985 MFA No. 8606 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ms.Bhushani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.H.C.Betsur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, in MVC No.2140/2019 dated 27.06.2022. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. The only point highlighted and upon which arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is in respect of the occupation and earnings of the deceased H.N.Madhu (hereinafter be referred to as the deceased for brevity) as on the date of accident. Learned counsel states that the deceased was working as driver as on the date of accident. The tribunal without considering the occupation of the deceased, took the notional income of the deceased as ¹14,000/- per month and thereby awarded meager sum as compensation towards loss of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1985 MFA No. 8606 of 2022 dependency. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the sum that is awarded as compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the appellants failed to produce any proof with regard to the occupation and earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident and therefore the tribunal rightly took the notional income of the deceased as ¹14,000/- per month, which figure is considered even by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of claims for the relevant period. 5. No doubt the appellants produced Ex.P9 which is a notarised copy of driving licence. A driving licence by itself does not establish the occupation of the person who possess the said licence. The appellants ought to have examined the employer of the deceased under whom the deceased was working as on the date of accident or should have produced any other evidence to show that, as driver - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1985 MFA No. 8606 of 2022 the deceased was earning a sum of ¹25,000/- as contended by them as on the date of accident. Admittedly except Ex.P9, no other evidence is on record to show the occupation and earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly took the notional income of the deceased as ¹14,000/- per month as on the date of accident. On going through the impugned order, this Court is also of the view that there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with. Therefore, this Court concludes that there are no grounds to enhance the sum that is awarded as compensation by the tribunal. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54