Allowed

Mr Devaraju v. Mr Ravikumar B T

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2026MFA/7607/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation in a fatal motor vehicle accident case. The High Court applied multiplier 16 for a deceased aged 35 years with 50% future prospects, recomputed loss of dependency and enhanced compensation from Rs.38,81,760 to Rs.41,20,744 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.41,20,744 with 6% p.a. interest; insurer directed to deposit additional Rs.2,38,984 within one month; petitioners permitted to withdraw.

Mr Devaraju Vs Mr Ravikumar B T — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:18237 MFA No. 7607 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7607 OF 2025 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR DEVARAJU S/O LATE PAPANNA,

¶9

MRS. GIRIJAMMA W/O DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶10

MR. BHANUPRAKASH.D S/O DEVARAJU,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MR. ARUN KUMAR.D S/0 DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SINDHIGERE VILLAGE AND POST, LAKHYA HOBLI,

¶15

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DIST.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SMT. B.N.MANJULA, ADV., FOR SRI. NAGARAJA R C. ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MR RAVIKUMAR B T S/O B.M. THIMMEGOWDA,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18237 MFA No. 7607 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. R/O S. BIDARE VILLAGE AND POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST. -1

¶23

THE MANAGER

¶24

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., BRANCH OFFICE 1ST FLOOR, CRESCENT COURT, K.M. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY-577101

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶27

V/O DATED 03.12.2025, NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 30.07.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 178/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KADUR AND CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATIONIN TIME.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under

¶33

Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 30.07.2025 passed in MVC

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18237 MFA No. 7607 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

No.178/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kadur, Chikkamagaluru District, for enhancement of the compensation.

¶37

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶38

The brief facts of the case are that, one Rohith Kumar S.D. S/o Devaraju, met with an accident on 30.09.2021 and died subsequently. His parents and brothers filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.70,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering

¶39

the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.38,81,760/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that Rohith Kumar was working as a Fire extinguisher and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation under

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18237 MFA No. 7607 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the head 'loss of dependency', 'loss of estate' and also 'loss of consortium' and amount granted towards 'funeral and transport expenses' is meager. Therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶43

Rohith Kumar was working in a Fire Extinguisher Department and was earning Rs.27,776/- per month and claimants have filed pay slip of the year August, 2018 at Ex.P12 and examined CW-1, his employer to prove his salary. The Tribunal considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and taken his income as Rs.27,776/-, which is not in dispute. He was born on 15.08.1986 and met with an accident on 30.09.2021 and it was observed by the Tribunal that he was aged 35 years, 01 month, 15 days as on the date of accident.

¶44

The learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company stated that he was aged 36 years and thus Tribunal has rightly considered the multiplier as '15' whereas the appellant counsel relied upon the judgment in

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:18237 MFA No. 7607 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the case of Divisional Controller, MSRTC Vs. Bismilah

¶49

and others¹ , wherein it was held that:

¶50

"16. The Corporation contended that the Tribunal has committed error in applying multiplier 13 as the deceased was aged 50 years 6 months. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), has determined the multiplier based on the age group of the deceased. Accordingly, the multiplier is 13 for the age group between 46-50 and multiplier 11 for age group between 51-55. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma referred supra, we are of the considered view that the deceased was in age group of 46-50 and not 51-55 as he has not completed 51 years of age on the date of accident. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier of 13 which does not call for interference."

¶51

In the present case, the deceased Rohith Kumar

¶52

had completed 35 years, 01 month, 15 days as on the date of the accident. Therefore, it is necessary to take the age group of 30 to 35 years for taking the multiplier and the multiplier is to be taken as '16'.

¶53

1 2024 ACJ 173

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18237 MFA No. 7607 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Rohith Kumar was aged 35 years as he was

¶57

permanent employee 50% is to be added towards his future prospects and as he was bachelor 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.39,99,744/- (27,776+50%×12×16-50%). The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are his parents they are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards parental consortium and Rs.33,000/- under conventional heads.

¶58

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶59

is as below:

¶60

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	39,99,744/-
2	Towards parental consortium	88,000/-
3	Towards conventional heads	33,000/-
	Total	41,20,744/-

¶61

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶62

total compensation of Rs.41,20,744/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:18237 MFA No. 7607 of 2025

¶64

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶69

ii. The judgment and award dated 30.07.2025 passed in MVC No.178/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kadur is modified.

¶70

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.41,20,744/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.38,81,760/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶71

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,38,984/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18237 MFA No. 7607 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

v. On such deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶75

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶76

AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Mr Devaraju v. Mr Ravikumar B T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Devaraju v. Mr Ravikumar B T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanthamma Vs Sri. K Y Mohanprasad

Sekh Ahammad Vs Shankar S

Sri Srinivas R Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri Muniyappa Vs the Managing Director

Rathnamma Vs M.M.Ajjaiah

Prema K Vs Mubarak Sharif @ Mubharak Sharif