✦ Karnataka High Court

SMT. SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE) v. BENGALURU - 560 010

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to compensation has to be interfered with in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATEL Vs. BABABHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI AND ANOTHER in Civil Appeal No.10278/2025, wherein it…
  • Para 66. Since the deceased child was 14 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier to be adopted would be '15' and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI, 40% requires to be…
  • Para 99. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled for compensation Rs.18,15,560/- against Rs.5,66,670/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

Judgment

Judgment

#1. JAYAMMA W/O BHARATHESHA NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

#2. BHARATHESHA S/O CHANDRAIAH NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTHA RE RESIDING AT SSIT COLLEGE MARALURU EXTENSION TUMAKURU CITY

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA V, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:

#1. BHAGYAVATHI K W/O VENKATASWAMY M K NOW AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT SRILAKSHMI NIVASA 5TH CROSS, HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:45693 MFA No. 6875 of 2022 CNR: KAHC010458302022 ASHOKA NAGAR TUMAKUR CITY - 563 121

#2. THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., GOLDEN HEIGHTS 4TH FLOOR, NO.1/2 59TH 'C' CROSS 4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.253/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:45693 MFA No. 6875 of 2022 CNR: KAHC010458302022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT

#1. The appeal is filed seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.253/2019 vide judgment and award dated 01.01.2022 for the accidental death of one Ravishankar M.B.

#2. It is not in dispute that, as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.12.2018, Ravishankar M.B., a 14 years old died.

#3. It is not in dispute that the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle was insured.

#4. The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident which has resulted in the death of Ravishankar M.B. The Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:45693 MFA No. 6875 of 2022 CNR: KAHC010458302022 Apex Court in the case Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2594 has awarded the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.)

#1. Loss of dependency 4,50,000

#2. Loss of love & affection funeral expenses and last rights

#3. Medical expenses 50,000 66,670 Total 5,66,670

#5. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to compensation has to be interfered with in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATEL Vs. BABABHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI AND ANOTHER in Civil Appeal No.10278/2025, wherein it is held that the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made in a case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away. Consequently, since the accident is of the year HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:45693 MFA No. 6875 of 2022 CNR: KAHC010458302022 2018, occurred at Tumkur District, which comes under Zone-II, as per the Minimum Wages Act for skilled labour, the wage was fixed at Rs.13,353.59/- per month.

#6. Since the deceased child was 14 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier to be adopted would be '15' and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI, 40% requires to be added towards future prospects and 50% requires to be deducted towards living and personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the income for calculating the loss of dependency would be Rs.9,347/- (Rs.13,353.59/- + 40% - 50%). Consequently, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.16,82,460/- (Rs.9,347/- X 12 X 15) towards 'loss of dependency'.

#7. The claimant, being the mother and sister of deceased, each are entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- in all Rs.96,800/- (48,400/- X 2) towards ‘loss of consortium’. HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:45693 MFA No. 6875 of 2022 CNR: KAHC010458302022 The claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under ‘conventional head’.

#8. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. 1. Loss of Dependency Particulars

#2. Loss of Consortium

#3. Conventional Heads Amount (In Rs.) 16,82,460 96,800 36,300 Total 18,15,560

#9. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled for compensation Rs.18,15,560/- against Rs.5,66,670/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

#10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

#11. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. HC-KAR - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:45693 MFA No. 6875 of 2022 CNR: KAHC010458302022

#12. The apportionment of compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

#13. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

#14. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. MFA No. 6875 of 2022). ← Search more judgments