SMT. RADHAMMA vs SMT. UMADEVI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5119 OF 2023(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. RADHAMMA,
W/O LATE PUTTALINGAIAH @
PUTALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2. KARTHIK P.,
S/O PUTTALINGAIAH @
PUTTALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
3. KEERTHIRAJ P.,
S/O LATE PUTTALINGAIAH @
PUTTALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O KONDAVADI VILLAGE AND POST,
PURAVARA HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE)
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
AND:
1. SMT. UMADEVI,
W/O ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.54, KOLIPURABANDI,
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
2. THE MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR,
BUILDING NO.2,
SHANKARANARAYANA
BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED
13.10.2026)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2023 PASSED IN MVC
NO.391/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, MADHUGIRI, 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:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'MV Act') by the
appellants/claimants not satisfied with the compensation
amount awarded in the Judgment and award dated
19.04.2023 in MVC No.391/2021 on the file of the Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Madhugiri (in short, 'the
Tribunal').
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks,
as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
3. The facts established before the Tribunal are
that the claimants are the wife and two major sons of the
deceased Puttalingaiah @ Puttalingappa and they claim
compensation in respect of death of Puttalingaiah @
Puttalingappa in the road traffic accident that had taken
place on 24.02.2021 at about 10:30 pm on Madhugiri -
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
Sira main road, near Venugopalaswamy temple involving
Eicher Canter bearing registration No.KA-02/AE-5158.
4. The contention of the claimants is that the
deceased was proceeding near the temple, the offending
vehicle came with rash and negligent manner from Sira
and dashed against Puttalingaiah and another person.
Puttalingaiah died on the spot.
5. After receiving the objection statement from
respondents No.1 and 2, who are the owner and Insurance
Company of the offending vehicle, after framing issues and
recording evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the
claimants are entitled for the total compensation of
` 9,90,000/- under the following heads:
1 ` 8,40,000/-
Loss of dependency
2 ` 15,000/-
Funeral expenses
3 ` 15,000/-
Loss of estate
`
4 1,20,000/-
Loss of consortium,
`
9,90,000/-
Total
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
6. Not satisfied with the aforesaid compensation,
the claimants are before this Court.
7. Heard arguments of both sides.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants-
Sri Sathisha T., appeared through video conference and
submits that the age of deceased was 45 years as per
Aadhar card of the deceased and thus 25% of the notional
income would be added towards future prospects, but the
Tribunal has added only 10% to future prospects and the
claimants are also entitled for 10% escalation charges on
conventional heads. Hence, prayed for allowing the
appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
insurance Company Sri B. Pradeep would submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable and requires no interference.
10. Having heard arguments on both sides,
verifying the appeal papers, the point that arise for
consideration is:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
"Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of the compensation?"
11. The finding of this Court on the above point is
in Affirmative for the following:
REASONS
12. The facts established before the Tribunal are
that the claimants are the wife and minor sons of the
deceased. Thus, by placing reliance of Sarla Verma and
1
Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
rd
1/3 of income of the deceased was deducted towards his
personal and living expenses. The age of the deceased
was 45 years. Hence, the relevant applicable multiplier
'14' was taken by the Tribunal, which is also proper. The
income of the deceased was taken at ` 15,000/- by placing
reliance on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority, which is also proper. However,
by placing reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
1
AIR 2009 SC 3104
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
2
others the Tribunal ought to have taken 25% of the
income towards future prospects, but the Tribunal has not
taken the future prospects. Thus, the claimants are
entitled for ( ` 15,000/- + 25% x 12 x 14 x 2/3) =
` 21,00,000/- instead of ` 8,40,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
13. As far as other conventional heads are
concerned, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable
compensation, but has not added the escalation charges
as per Pranay Sethi's case cited supra. Hence, the
claimants are entitled for 10% escalation charges on the
compensation under the heads 'Funeral expenses', 'Loss of
estate' and ‘loss of consortium’.
14. Hence, the claimants are entitled for
compensation under following heads:
1 ` 21,00,000/-
Loss of dependency
2 ` 16,500/-
Funeral expenses
2
(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
3 ` 16,500/-
Loss of estate
4 ` 1,32,000/-
Loss of consortium
` 22,65,000/-
Total
15. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
a. Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part .
b. Judgment and award dated 19.04.2023 passed
in MVC No.391/2021 on the file of the Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Madhugiri is modified
holding that the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of ` 22,65,000/- as against
` 9,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60893
MFA No. 5119 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010381072023
d. The respondent No.2-insurance Company shall
deposit the compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment.
e. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit shall
be as per the order of the Tribunal.
f. No order as to costs
g. Draw modified award accordingly.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
LL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22