IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.80/2024 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1. SARALA M

W/O LATE PRAKASH B

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

2. VINAY P

S/O LATE PRAKASH B

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

BOTH R/AT NO.136,

25^TH WARDS, NPO ROAD,

Digitally signed

by MEGHA

MOHAN CHIKKABALLAPUR,

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ROYAL SUNDARAM GIC LTD

REP. BY ITS MANAGER,

NO.132, 2^ND FLOOR,

MANGALAYA PUNARBHAV, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025.

2. VENKATARAMANAIAH K V S/O VENKATARAYAPPA MAJOR, NO.636, WARD NO.23 OPP. RAILWAY STATION, CHAMARAJAPETE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN AND DISTRICT- 562 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O/D 21.02.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.7643/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.7643/2018 dated 11.02.2021 by the XVI Additional Judge & MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The Tribunal had awarded the compensation as per the table given below:

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the gross salary of the deceased was an amount of Rs.31,769/- per month. It is submitted that the claimant had examined PW.2 in this regard. But the Tribunal had taken the salary at Rs.17,500/- which is on the lower side. It is submitted that the compensation needs to be enhanced on all other counts also.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/

Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly granted just and reasonable compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered award passed by the Tribunal.

5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Coming to the aspect of salary, the claimants have produced salary slip i.e., Ex.P17 and the same contains the details of his income. The basic salary is an amount of Rs.17,500/-, HRA is an amount of Rs.7,000/-, Conveyance allowance is an amount of Rs.2,300/-, LTA is an amount of Rs.1,250/- and medical reimbursement is an amount of Rs.1,250/- and other allowances Rs.2,456/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken the basic salary, HRA, conveyance allowance and also medical reimbursement except LTA. If the same is taken, the income will come to Rs.28,050/- per month. Considering the salary at Rs.28,050/-, as he was aged about 30 years, future prospects at 40% would come to an amount of Rs.11,220/-. Then the salary would be an amount of Rs.39,270/-. As he is a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Then his contribution to the family would come to an amount of Rs.19,635/-. Hence, towards loss of dependency, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,05,540/- (Rs.19,635x12x17). Towards loss of consortium, as there are two claimants, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.88,000/- (Rs.44,000x2). Towards funeral expenses, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,000/-

6. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and Another, (2014) 11 SCC 178, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses

7. The claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads:

8. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount