2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22751
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT AND K. V. ARAVIND
MAHESH KUMAR S – Appellant
Versus
SMT. RAJAMMA – Respondent
MFA 8121/2025
##PAGE1##
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8121 OF 2025 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
MAHESH KUMAR S AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O SHEKAR R/AT NO.371,
CHIKKAMALAPURA VILLAGE, LOKKANAHALLI HOBLI, HANUR TALUK-571 439
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT …APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARAVIND REDDY.H., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S AND:
Location: H igh Court of Karnataka 1. SMT. RAJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O LATE MAHADEVA,
R/AT SATTHEGALA, AGRAHARA VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI,
KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571 440.
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
2. MAHADEVA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
##PAGE2##- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025
HC-KAR
S/O LATE MAHADEVA, R/AT SATTHEGALA,
AGRAHARA VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571 440
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
3. VARUN M AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
S/O LATE MAHADEVA, R/AT SATTHEGALA,
AGRAHARA VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571 440
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA PRASAD.B.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.02.05.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 189/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KOLLEGALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.23,10,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
##PAGE3##- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The appellant is the respondent before the Tribunal, is
before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants under impugned judgment and award dated 02.05.2025 in MVC.No.189/2024 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kollegala.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Mahadeva in a road traffic accident that occurred on 07.04.2024 involving motorbike bearing Reg.No.KA-10-U-7146 and Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MF-4375. It is stated that the deceased-Mahadeva was working as a mason, earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. It is stated that the
deceased was aged nearly 46 years as on the date of accident.
3. The respondent i.e., appellant herein appeared
before the Tribunal and filed his objections contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased himself and there is no negligence
##PAGE4##- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025
HC-KAR
on the part of the driver of the Swift Car. Further, the respondent denied the age, occupation and income of the
deceased. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The claimants in support of their claim, examined
PWs.1 and 2, apart from marking documents at Exs.P1 to P8. The respondent examined RW.2, apart from marking
documents at Exs.R1 and R2.
5. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on record,
awarded total compensation of Rs.23,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal determined the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per month, added 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.44,000/- towards consortium to each of the claimants and Rs.16,500/- was awarded towards funeral and obsequies ceremony and further Rs.16,500/- was awarded on the head of
loss of estate.
##PAGE5##- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. The respondent-owner of the offending vehicle is
before this Court in this appeal contending that the quantum of