REVANNA D S vs PRABHUSWAMY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7974 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. REVANNA D S
S/O SHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2. MANJULA
W/O REVANNA D S,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. NANJUNDASWAMY D R
S/O REVANNA D S,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
MINOR R/P BY HIS NATURAL FATHER
REVANNA D S - APPELLANT NO-1
ALL ARE R/AT JANNUR VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK &
DISTRICT–571441.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M Y,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRABHUSWAMY
S/O NAGARAJAPPA,
MAJOR,
R/AT KELLAMBALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TQ & DISTRICT-571442.
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ST
DO-1, 1 FLOOR, 371/A,
PRESTIGE SHOPPING ARCADE,
RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, P B NO.212,
MYSURU-570005.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY,ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DT:10.11.2023)
*
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
& SESSIONS JUDGE &MACT AT CHAMARAJANAGAR, IN
MVC NO.326/2016 ON 04.06.2019, THEREBY ENHANCING
THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY WITH INTEREST, AND
GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS IN FAVOUR OF THE
APPELLANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 the Judgment
and Award dated 04.06.2019 in M.V.C.No.326/2016,
passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge
and MACT, at Chamarajanagar, [hereinafter referred to as
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
the ‘Impugned Award’]. B y the Impugned Award, the
learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the
appellants/claimants in a sum of Rs.14,60,800/- along
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
petition till its realisation.
2. Although the appeal is listed for Orders, however,
with the consent of the parties and given the pendency of
the matter, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal,
at this stage.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Notice to
respondent No.1 was dispensed with vide an Order of this
Court dated 10.11.2023.
4. Briefly the facts of the case are, that on 01.10.2016
at about 8:45 a.m., the deceased Mahadeva Prasad was
returning towards Chamarajanagar from Badanaguppe on
a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-09/HH-6070 as
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
a pillion rider. At that time, near Mariyala village Gate, on
Chamarajanagar-Nanjanagudu Main Road, a Hero
Splendor Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-10/S-
4561 being ridden by its rider in a very rash and negligent
manner, came from Chamarajanagar side and towards
extreme right side of the road, at a high speed, so as to
endanger human life, and dashed against the Motor Cycle
on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider.
Due to the impact, the deceased Mahadeva Prasad and
also the rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
The deceased was immediately shifted to Chamarajanagar
General hospital, where first aid was given and then he
was admitted to JSS Hospital, Mysuru as an in-patient for
higher treatment. However, in spite of best treatment, he
succumbed to the injuries on 02.10.2016, while under
treatment in the Hospital.
5. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
M.V. Act’] by the parents and a younger sibling of the
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
deceased. It was stated that the appellants have spent a
sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical and other incidental
expenses for the treatment of the deceased, who was
hospitalised from 01.10.2016 to 02.10.2016. It was
further stated in the claim petition that on account of the
death of the deceased, they have lost the sole earning
member of the family. It was also stated that the
deceased was aged about 20 years and a hale and healthy
person at the time of accident. It was further stated that
he was working as an Electrician in Chamarajanagara and
also doing agricultural work for his livelihood and to look
after the family members and thereby earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month.
5.1 On service of notice in the claim petition, both the
respondents appeared through their respective counsel,
however, it was only the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company, which filed the Written Statement. In the
Written Statement, the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company denied all the averments made in the claim
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
petition and also specifically denied the occurrence of the
accident and also involvement of the offending vehicle. It
was stated in the Written Statement that the respondent
No.1/Owner was not having a MCWG licence to ride the
Motor Cycle and thus has violated Rule 3 of the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Insurance Company
further contended that the compensation claimed is
excessive.
6. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties, the
following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
“ISSUES
(1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased
Mahadeva Prasad D.R. son of Revanna D.S met with an
accident on 01.10.2016, at about 8.45 AM, near Mariyala
Village Gate, on Chamarajanagar –Nanjangudu Main
Road, when he was proceeding on motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-09-HH-6070 as a pillion rider along
with his friend Pavanakumar who was riding the said
motorcycle in order to go to Chamarajanagar from
Badanaguppe?
(2) Whether the petitioners further prove that the said
accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of rider of
the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-10-
S-4561 who dashed against the motor cycle on which the
deceased was travelling as pillion rider and as a result of
the same, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he
expired at the hospital?
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
(3) Whether the respondents prove that they are not
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners?
(4) Whether petitioners are entitle for compensation, if so,
at what extent and from whom?
(5) What award or order?”
7. On behalf of the appellants/claimants, the father of
the deceased was examined as PW-1 and an eye-witness
was examined as PW-2 and produced true copies of the
First Information Report (Ex.P-1), complaint (Ex.P-2),
mahazar (Ex.P-3), sketch (Ex.P-4), spot mahazar (Ex.
P-5), post-mortem report (Ex.P-6), IMV report (Ex.P-7),
charge sheet (Ex.P-8) and RTC (Ex.P-9). Though no
witness was examined on behalf of the respondents, an
MLC extract was produced as Ex.R-1.
8. The learned Tribunal, after examining the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, viz. charge
sheet, spot sketch, spot mahazar and other documents,
found that the Insurance Company had not adduced any
evidence to substantiate their defence taken in their
Written Statement. Except the documentary evidence at
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
Ex.R-1 (MLC extract), there is absolutely no evidence to
substantiate their stand. The learned Tribunal also held
that the concerned Medical Practitioner has not mentioned
whether the injured (deceased) was in a position to say
anything before him. It further held that the respondents
had not placed any materials to discard the evidence
placed by the petitioners (appellants/claimants) nor
challenged the charge sheet and also have not stepped
into the witness box to rebut the evidence adduced by the
petitioners. Thus, considering all these aspects, the
learned Tribunal held that the respondents No.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners and ultimately fastened the liability on the
Insurance Company to satisfy the Award.
8.1 Although the appellants/claimants claimed that the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month,
from his profession as an Electrician and also agricultural
work, the learned Tribunal held that no document was filed
in support of the same. Thus, in the absence of proof of
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
income, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the
minimum Wages Rules under MNERGA, assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day, which is
Rs.9,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about
20 years and self-employed, 40% was also added as per
the law laid down in the case of National Insurance
1
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others .
Given that the deceased was a bachelor, the learned
Tribunal deducted 50% towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged
about 20 years, the multiplier of ‘18’ was applied.
Accordingly, applying the judgments in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport
2
Corporation and another and Pranay Sethi case, the
‘loss of dependency’ was calculated at Rs.13,60,800/- as
follows:
Rs.9,000/- +40% (3,600/-) = 12,600/-
12,600/- (-) 1/2 (6,300/-) =6,300/-
6,300/-x12x18 = 13,60,800/-
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
2
(2009) 6 SCC 121
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
8.2 In addition, the learned Tribunal awarded amounts
towards ‘loss of estate’, loss of consortium and love and
affection and funeral expenses in the following manner:
Sl.
No.
Heads of Compensation Amount
(in Rs.)
1 Loss of Dependency 13,60,800/-
2 Loss of love and affection @ 20,000/- 60,000/-
to each (20,000/-x3)
3 Loss to Estate 15,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
5 Transportation of dead body 10,000/-
TOTAL 14,60,800/-
8.3 The learned Tribunal thus has awarded a sum of
Rs.14,60,800/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
submits that his challenge is on three grounds. Firstly, he
submits that the notional income was wrongly taken at
Rs.9,000/- per month, to calculate the compensation
towards loss of dependency, when the notional income for
the year 2016 was Rs.9,500/- per month. Secondly, he
contends that the compensation towards loss of
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
consortium and escalation was also not awarded as held
by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case. Lastly, he
contends that even though the deceased was a bachelor,
he is survived by two parents and a younger sibling, who
were all entirely dependent upon the income of the
deceased. Therefore, in terms of the judgment in Sarla
rd
Verma case, 1/3 ought to have been deducted towards
the personal and living expenses of the deceased instead
of 50% as has been done by the learned Tribunal.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/
Insurance Company fairly submits that the amounts
awarded under the non-pecuniary heads would require
enhancement in terms of the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi cases. He
further fairly concedes that the notional income for the
year 2016 was Rs.9,500/- per month. However, he
submits that since the deceased was a bachelor, the
learned Tribunal is justified in deducting 50% towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased.
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
11. This Court has examined the record. It is undisputed
that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of
occurrence of the accident. It is stated that he was
working as an Electrician and also doing agricultural work
and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However,
since no document was produced, this Court deems it
apposite to consider the notional income as per the
Notional Income Chart prepared by the KSLSA, for the
year 2016 which is Rs.9,500/- per month.
11.1 It is not disputed that the dependents are three in
number, which includes a minor sibling of the deceased.
It is stated that the deceased was looking after the
complete educational expenses of the younger sibling and
the entire family was dependent on his income. Thus, at
this juncture, it would be apposite to consider the law
governing deduction towards personal and living expenses
in the case of a bachelor. While the normal rule, as
enunciated in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
3
Transport Corporation and another , is that 50% of
the income is to be deducted where the deceased was a
bachelor and the said principle is not inflexible and admits
exceptions where the evidence discloses exceptional
dependency of the family upon the deceased. The relevant
extract of the judgment is set out below:
“31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50%
is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is
assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on
himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
getting married in a short time, in which event the
contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut
drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income
and will not be considered as a dependant and the
mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers
and sisters will not be considered as dependants,
because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where the family
of the bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a
widowed mother and large number of younger non-
earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and
3
2009 (6) SCC 121
13
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
contribution to the family will be taken as two-
third. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11.2 In the present case, as contended, the father of the
deceased was suffering from health issues and was under
treatment. Further, it is stated that the appellant
No.3/claimant No.3, i.e. the younger brother of the
th
deceased was studying in 8 Standard at the time of
death of deceased and his educational expenses were
completely borne by the deceased. Thus, it is stated that
the entire family was financially dependent upon the
income of the deceased. Having regard to the exceptional
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that the deduction towards personal and
rd
living expenses ought to be considered at 1/3 instead of
50% as has been done by the learned Tribunal.
11.3 The learned Tribunal, considering the age of the
deceased (20 years), has applied the multiplier of ‘18’,
which is just and proper and the same is accepted. As
14
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
stated above, the notional income is taken at Rs.9,500/-
per month. As per the ratio of law laid down in Pranay
Sethi case, 40% is required to be added for loss of future
prospects, as the deceased was a self-employed and aged
about 20 years. Thus, the compensation towards loss of
dependency is re-calculated as follows:
Rs.9,500/- + 40% (3,800/-)=13,300/-
rd
13,300/- (-) 1/3 (4,433/-) =8,867/-
8,867x 12 x’18’ = 19,15,272/-
12. So far as concerns the compensation towards loss of
consortium/loss of love and affection, the learned Tribunal
has awarded only a sum of Rs.60,000/- @ Rs.20,000/- to
each appellant. However, in view of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, loss of
consortium is payable at Rs.40,000/- each, to the three
appellants/claimants totalling to Rs.1,20,000/-.
12.1 This Court agrees with the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties that no escalation has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, considering
the aforegoing reasons, the escalation at the rate of 20%,
15
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
is awarded on the conventional heads of compensation.
Thus, the revised calculation would be as follows:
Sl.
No.
Particulars Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
1
Rs.9,500/- + 40% (3,800/-)=13,300/-
rd
13,300/- (-) 1/3 (4,433/-) =8,867/-
8,867x 12 x’18’ = 19,15,272/-
19,15,272/-
2 Loss of Consortium
[Rs.40,000/-x3 (+)20%]
1,44,000/-
3 Loss of Estate
[Rs.15,000/-(+)20%]
18,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses
[Rs.15,000/-(+)20%]
18,000/-
TOTAL 20,95,272/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 14,60,800/-
Enhanced compensation 6,34,472/-
13. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled to total
compensation in a sum of Rs.20,95,272/-.
14. On the aspect of the interest awarded by the learned
Tribunal, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal has
awarded interest at 8% per annum. However, this Court
has, in a recent judgment captioned United India
16
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
4
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M And Others ,
after analyzing the precedents of the Supreme Court and
this Court, found that an award of 9% interest is in
accordance with the settled provisions in the present-day
scenario, especially in cases of death and permanent
disability. It was held that the award of 9% interest has
been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court.
15. However, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case on hand, this Court declines to interfere in the
rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal and
retains it at 8% per annum.
16. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 04.06.2019
in M.V.C.No.326/2016, passed by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT,
4
2026 SCC Online Kar 4090
17
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
at Chamarajanagar,is modified, enhancing the
compensation by Rs.6,34,472/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of petition till realization;
(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned
Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed;
(iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is
directed to pay the enhanced compensation
along with interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal, within eight weeks from today;
(v) On deposit of such compensation, the same
shall be released in favour of the appellants/
claimants, as ordered by the learned Tribunal, on
filing of an appropriate application;
(vi) All pending applications stand closed;
(vii) No order as to costs;
18
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56546
MFA No. 7974 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010433862019
(viii) The Registry is directed to draw the
modified Award accordingly;
(ix) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of
this judgment, along with its records, to the
concerned Tribunal.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
BMV*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56
19