- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7966 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER, M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002 NOW REP BY ITS MANAGER, M/S ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, THE ESTATE, 9TH FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-42 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O SHANTHAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, (DEAD) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 1. SRI VEERABHADRAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. SRI BASAVARAJAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O MADDERU VILLAGE, TALYA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK. 3. SMT DYAMAKKA D/O SHIVALINGAPPA, W/O YARAGUNTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O GOOLIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK. 4. SRI T N RAJAPPA S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MADDERU VILLAGE, TALYA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK. 5. M/S IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH MANAGER, JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA 6. SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 MADDERU VILLAGE, TALYA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. N.R. RANGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (ABSENT); SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.521/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HOLALKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,07,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy N.A who represents Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda learned counsel on record for the appellate as well as Sri.R.Shashidhara learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No representation for other respondents on call. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere in MVC No.521/2020 dated 16.06.2022. The insurance company against which liability is fastened to pay compensation is before this Court by filing this appeal with a version that the compensation granted is highly exorbitant. 3. For the sake of convenience of discussion the appellant will hereinafter be referred as the insurance company and respondent Nos.1 to 3 as claimants. 4. Claimant Nos.1 to 3 and their father filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 death of Sharadhamma (hereinafter be referred to as the deceased for brevity). It is not in dispute that the deceased is the wife of Sri. M.S.Shivalingappa, who died during the course of proceedings and the mother of claimant Nos.1 to 3. The tribunal through the impugned order held that they are entitled to a sum of Rs.13,07,800/- as compensation. 5. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was aged around 65 years as on the date of accident. Thus, 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 case, future prospects are not required to be added. However the tribunal added 40% towards future prospects. Learned counsel also states that the tribunal deducted 1/4th of the earnings of the deceased towards her personal and living expenses. However, claimant No.1 the elder son was aged around 40 years, claimant No.2 the younger son was aged around 33 years and claimant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 No.4 the daughter was aged about 35 years and got married by the date of accident. Therefore, they cannot be held to be the dependants of the deceased. Thus the dependent will be only one that is the husband of the deceased. Thus 50% of the earnings of the deceased are required to be deducted but the tribunal deducted 1/4th of the earnings unjustifiably. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants admits that the tribunal erroneously added 40% of the earnings towards future prospects. Learned counsel seeks to dispose of the matter on merits. 7. Claimants failed to establish the actual occupation and earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident. However, tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month. As rightly put forth, the claimants herein cannot be held to be the dependents of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of the earnings of the deceased are required to be deducted towards personal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for herself had she been alive. The Tribunal adopted the appropriate multiplier 7 which needs no interference. Thus the compensation which is required to be granted under the head of loss of dependency is as under:- Heads Amount in Rs. Notional income 14,000.00 Annual income 1,68,000.00 On deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses 84,000.00 Loss of dependency on applying appropriate multiplier 7 5,88,000.00 8. Thus the compensation which the insurance company is liable to pay under the head loss of dependency is Rs.5,88,000/-. Together with the said amount, the appellate/insurance company should also pay to the claimants a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Along with the said amount, husband is entitled to Rs.40,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 towards loss of spousal consortium and likewise the claimants who are the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Thus the total compensation which the appellant is liable to pay to the claimants is as under:- Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 5,88,000.00 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000.00 Loss of parental consortium 1,20,000.00 Total 7,78,000.00 9. The Tribunal through the impugned order held that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.13,07,800/- as compensation. However, the discussion that went on supra makes it clear that they are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,78,000/- only as compensation. 10. During the course of dictation of the order, Sri.C.Shankara Reddy learned counsel for respondent No.5 made his appearance and submitted that respondent No.5 is only a formal party to the appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9571 MFA No. 7966 of 2022 11. 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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Holalkere through orders in MVC No.521/2020 dated 16.06.2022 is reduced from Rs.13,07,800/- to Rs.7,78,000/-. iii. The amount awarded as compensation shall be disbursed to all the three surviving claimants in equal proportion. iv. Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the concerned tribunal immediately. v. Amount if any deposited in excess be refunded to the appellant. In the light of disposal of the appeal, proceedings in interlocutory applications if any pending be closed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14