- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7693 MFA No. 5625 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5625 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. UMADEVI T W/O LATE RAVI S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. DEEPAK R S/O LATE RAVI S AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, 3. HEMAKSHAMMA W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT, ALL ARE RESIDING AT PADMAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK - 572 137. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARATHI G W/O G.P. NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.163, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7693 MFA No. 5625 of 2024 DHARGA ROAD, OPP. NETRAVATHI LODGE MADHUGIRI TOWN - 572 132. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BARLINE ROAD, OPP. SRIRAMA MANDIRA TUMKUR TOWN - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.02.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.14.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.318/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, SIRA, 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both sides. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants against the common order dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7693 MFA No. 5625 of 2024 14.03.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Sira in M.V.C.No.318/2022 and M.V.C No.320/2022. 3. The plaint averments in brief are that, one Ravi met with an accident on 28.02.2022 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on his motor cycle, from Kondammanahalli towards Rathnasandra Gollarahatti through Madhugiri – Sira NH 234 road and when they reached near Arehalli gate. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. 4. On account of the death of Ravi, his wife, mother and child filed claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `35,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on file, partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of a sum of `31,46,268/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7693 MFA No. 5625 of 2024 from the date of petition till the date of deposit from the respondents. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, insofar as partly rejecting the claim of the appellants/claimants, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the deceased Ravi was aged 29 years, he was an expert brick maker and was earning `30,000/- per month but the Tribunal has erred in taking his income as `15,500/- which is on lower side. He is a skilled labour and he cannot be equated with ordinary coolie and rely upon the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority, and interest rate also to be enhanced to 12%. The main contention of the appellants is that even in the inquest report it was specifically mentioned that he was a skilled brick maker and his income was `30,000/- per month and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7693 MFA No. 5625 of 2024 as such his income is to be considered as `30,000/- per month but the Tribunal erred in relying upon the chart. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and rightly granted the just compensation and it needs no interference. 8. It is for the petitioners to prove that deceased was working as a brick maker and was earning `30,000/- per month by examining his employer and by filing the relevant documents in support of his income but he failed to do so. As such tribunal rightly considered his notional income as he met with an accident in the year 2022. Therefore, it needs no interference. 9. Accordingly, taking the notional monthly income of the deceased at `15,500/-, deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, adopting multiplier of '17', as he was aged 29 he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. The loss of dependency, which - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7693 MFA No. 5625 of 2024 works out to (`15,500/- x 12 x 17 - 1/3 + 40%) `29,51,268/-. First petitioner is entitled for ₹44,000 towards spousal consortium. Second petitioner is entitled for ₹44,000 towards parental consortium and third petitioner is entitled for ₹ 44,000 towards filial consortium and they are also entitled for ₹33,000 under the Conventional heads. 10. The trial court rightly considered other aspects and granted reasonable amounts under the other heads. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the award of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8