HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4979 OF 2018(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO. IX, MITRA TOWERS NO.10/4, KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.A.RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH, 2. MASTER KIRAN AGED 17 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT.BAGYAMMA. 3. SMT. NAVYA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, W/O HANUMANTHA RAJU, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -2- 4. SMT. VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O CHIKKANANJAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HALASABELE KOLURU TANDYA, AGALAKOTE HAND POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120. 5. SRI. RAMACHANDRA MAJOR BY AGE, S/O GANGADARAIAH, LALAYANAPALYA, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.V.SHIVANANDA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; V/O DTD: 03.12.2018-NOTICE TO R5-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2963/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,10,056/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2018 passed in HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -3- MVC.No.2963/2017, by the learned I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”]. 2. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.12,10,056/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The award has been apportioned between the claimants as set out therein. 3. The challenge in the present appeal is by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken one ground of challenge. He submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in its finding that the deceased was 43 years old, thus the calculation of future prospects and the multiplier and award of compensation has wrongly been made. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the accident happened in the year 2017. However, the notional income has been wrongly taken by HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -4- the learned Tribunal as Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.11,000/- as is applicable. 5. Briefly the facts in the present case are that on 16.05.2017 at around 01.30 p.m., the deceased Shivalingaiah was walking on the left side of the road at Magadi Huliyurdurga Road, near Sadashivaiah land, Hulikatte, Agalakote handpost, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District and at that time, an Alto Car bearing No.KA-02- MC-2451, which was been driven from Alasabele to Magadi, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. Due to the impact of the vehicle, the deceased died on the spot. The claim petition was filed by the mother, wife and children of the deceased. The claim petition also set out the age of the deceased as 41 years. The case of rash and negligent driving was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle as Crime No.100/2017 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. 6. The owner of the Alto car and the appellant/ Insurance Company were arrayed as parties to the present HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -5- petition. They both appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective written statements denying the claim petition. The appellant/Insurance company denied the involvement of the vehicle as well. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether petitioner proves that, the husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd and 3rd petitioner and son of petitioner No.4 namely Shivalingaiah succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 16.05.2017 at about 1.30 p.m., near Sadashivaiah Land, Magadi Huliyurdurga Road, Hulikatte, Agalakote Hand Post, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, while he was walking on the left side of the road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA-02-MC- 2451 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner entitled for the compensation as claimed in the petition? If so, what is the question of compensation and from whom? 3. What order or award?” 8. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and she exhibited 16 documents including the Aadhar card of the deceased as Ex.P-1 to P-16. No evidence was placed on record by any of the respondents. Based on the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -6- evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants under various heads as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount in ₹ 1 Loss of dependency 11,20,056/- 2 Loss of consortium 40,000/- 3 Loss of Love and affection 20,000/- 4 Loss of estate 15,000/- 5 Funeral expenses 15,000/- Total 12,10,056-00 9. The learned Tribunal thus held that the petitioners were entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.12,10,056/- along with 8% interest which was apportioned in the following manner: Sl. No. Claimant Amount 1 Petitioner No.1 Rs.06,00,000/- 2 Petitioner No.2 Rs.05,00,056/- 3 Petitioner No.3 Rs.00,10,000/- 4 Petitioner No.4 Rs.01,00,000/- 10. As stated above, the challenge in the present appeal by the appellant/Insurance Company is on one ground alone. In terms of Ex.P15, the date of birth of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -7- petitioner No.4 is recorded as 1964. Thus, the Trial Court has wrongly taken the age of the deceased as 43 years. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the deceased was 45 years at the time of his death and not 43 years. He further submits that even though the voter ID card of the deceased shows his date of birth is 1964. There is a typographical error in the Voter ID card. In support of his contention, he seeks to rely upon Ex.P7, which is the Post Mortem Report as well as Ex.P14, which is the Aadhar Card of the mother of the deceased. 11. The question which arises before this Court is whether the compensation awarded has been calculated correctly by the Tribunal. 12. This Court has examined these documents filed. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation. The Voter ID card of the deceased shows his date of birth as “XX/XX/1964”. The appellant/Insurance Company however, has sought to rely on the Post Mortem Report, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -8- which is at Ex.P7, which sets out that the deceased was 54 years at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation based on the age as reflected in the Voter ID Card. However, what is most crucial is the Aadhar Card of the mother of the deceased- Smt.Venkatamma. The Aadhar Card, which is exhibited as Ex-P14 shows the date of birth of the mother of the deceased as 01.01.1958. Clearly if the deceased's mother was born in 1958, her son the deceased could not be born in 1964, which is after a gap of eight years. Hence, given this evidence, this Court is unable to give a finding that the deceased was 53 years old. 13. The examination of the Award also shows that the national income has been calculated by the learned Trial Court by awarding the income at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. The notional income as was accorded by the notification, requires the income to be taken at Rs.11,000/- per month. Thus, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month, adding ‘future HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -9- prospects’ at 15% (Rs.2,750/-), the total income comes to Rs.13,750/-. Out of it, 1/4th is deducted towards ‘personal expenses’ (Rs.3,437.50/-), which comes to Rs.10,312.50. Accordingly, the ‘loss of dependency’ is to be awarded in the following manner: “Rs.10,312.50/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.17,32,500/-” 14. Thus, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is re-assessed in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 17,32,500-00 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- X 4) 1,60,000-00 3 Loss of estate 15,000-00 4 Funeral expenses 15,000-00 Total 19,22,500-00 Less: awarded by Tribunal 12,10,056-00 Enhanced compensation 7,12,444-00 15. Hence, the respondents/petitioners are entitled to total compensation of Rs.19,22,500/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -10- 16. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions: ORDER (i) The appeal is disposed of. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2018 in MVC.No.2963/2017 passed by the learned I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru is modified to the extent that the respondents/petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.7,12,444/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to Rs.12,10,056/- that has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. (iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% p.a. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8635 MFA No. 4979 of 2018 -11- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. (v) The amount in deposit by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal within a week. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records. (viii) No order as to costs. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA