IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3385 OF 2022 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.SARASWATHI, W/O NAGARAJ, AGED 41 YEARS, 2. SRI NAGARAJ, S/O CHANNACHARI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT: NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISRICT - 562 117.

…APPELLANTS (BY MISS. NITHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by 1. NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD., KAVYA R OFFICE AT NO.9, 2^ND FLOOR, Location: MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, High Court of M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, Karnataka REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

2. SRI K.M.MAHESH, S/O MADEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT: WARD NO.21, KENKERAMMA TEMPLE BEEDI, KANAKAPURA TOWN, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.K. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1881, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.7695/2019 BY MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR admission, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19.01.2022 passed in MVC.No.7695/2019 by the Court of the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 14.11.2019 at about 06.30 p.m., when one Avinash was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HJ-7111 along with pillion rider, at that time, a TATA 407 LGV vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42-532 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to which, the said Avinash fell down and sustained grievous injures and succumbed to the same. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

3.1 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,35,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

3.2 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court.

Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-

Insurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for appellants-

claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and death having occurred due to the road traffic accident, are not in dispute. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle.

7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is stated that the income taken by the tribunal is Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.14,000/- for the accident of the year 2019. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.14,000/-. The age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘17’, which does not call for interference. The tribunal has rightly awar