Mahesh Kumar S Vs Smt. Rajamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mahesh Kumar S Vs Smt. Rajamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per month? +1 more

Court's answer

Point (i) answered affirmatively: the Tribunal was justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per month, which accords with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart for accidents of the year 2024; the High Court finds no error in the Tribunal's determination of income.

Ratio / Principle

Point (ii) answered affirmatively: the Tribunal rightly took the deceased's age as 46 years based on the post-mortem report Ex.P7 and Aadhaar card Ex.P8, and added 25% towards future prospects; the appellant-owner produced no material proving the deceased was aged more than 50, so there is no basis to differ from the Tribunal's finding of age.

Key takeaways

Having found no merit in the quantum challenge, the Division Bench dismissed the Miscellaneous First Appeal, leaving the Tribunal's award undisturbed, directed transmission of the amount in deposit to the Tribunal, and held pending I.As as not surviving for consideration.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 8121 of 2025 (MV-D), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 07.04.2026 (coram: S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ.; oral judgment per S.G. Pandit J.). The owner of the Maruthi Swift Car (Reg.No.KA-03-MF-4375) involved in the fatal 07.04.2024 collision with motorbike Reg.No.KA-10-U-7146 appealed under S.173(1) MV Act against the judgment and award dated 02.05.2025 of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kollegal in MVC No. 189/2024, which awarded the dependants of the deceased mason Mahadeva (claimed to earn Rs.30,000/- per month, age disputed) Rs.23,10,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., arguing the notional income should have been Rs.15,000/- per month and that the deceased was over 50, not 46. Two points were framed — correctness of the Rs.16,500/- notional income and of the age of 46 — and both answered affirmatively: Rs.16,500/- per month matches the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart for accidents of the year 2024, with no error found in the income determination; the age of 46 rests on the post-mortem report Ex.P7 and Aadhaar card Ex.P8, and the appellant adduced no material showing the deceased exceeded 50, so the 25% future-prospects addition stands. Appeal dismissed as meritless; amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal; pending I.As non-suited. No precedent cases were cited or engaged with in the judgment.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH 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 Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

SMT. RAJAMMA

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O LATE MAHADEVA, R/AT SATTHEGALA, AGRAHARA VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571 440. CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

MAHADEVA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 1/3^rd 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.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025

HC-KAR

The respondent-owner of the offending vehicle is before this Court in this appeal contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.

Learned counsel Sri. H.Aravind Reddy appearing for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing notional income of the deceased-Mahadeva at Rs.16,500/- per month and he submits that the Tribunal ought to have assessed notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, learned counsel would submit that the claimants have not placed on record any material to establish the income of the deceased and in that circumstances assessing the income at Rs.16,500/- per month is on higher side. Learned counsel would submit that the deceased was aged more than 50 years as on the date of accident but the Tribunal without there being any material, assessed the age of the deceased at 46 years and added 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. On the above two grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing the appeal and to reduce compensation.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025

HC-KAR

Learned counsel Sri. Ranganatha Prasad.B.S. for

the respondents-claimants supports the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and further submits that the notional income for the year 2024 is Rs.16,500/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the Tribunal is justified in assessing the said income. Learned counsel would further submit that though the appellant had taken contention that the age of the deceased was more than 50 years as on the date of accident, the said contention is not substantiated by any proof. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers, the following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per month?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking the age of the deceased at 46 years?

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025

HC-KAR

Answer to both the above points would be in the 'Affirmative' for the following reasons:

The accident 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 and the accidental death of husband of first claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The respondent-owner of the offending Swift Car is before this Court questioning only the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.

The claimants have stated that the deceased was doing mason work and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as income. However, the claimants have not placed any material to establish the income claimed. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per month.

In terms of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident of the year 2024, the notional income would be Rs.16,500/- per month and the Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income at

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025

HC-KAR

Rs.16,500/- per month. We do not find any error in the determination of income by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was aged more than 50 years as on the date of accident and the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the age of the deceased at 46 years. The Tribunal based on the material on record including post mortem report-Ex.P7 and Aadhaar card of deceased-Ex.P8, has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 46 years as on the date of accident and added 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The respondent-owner of the offending vehicle has not placed on record any material to prove the contention that the deceased was aged more than 50 years as the date of accident. When the Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased at 46 years based on Exs.P7 and P8, there is no material to differ with the same.

There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, appeal stands dismissed .

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18882-DB MFA No. 8121 of 2025

HC-KAR

The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.

In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.As do not

survive for consideration.

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/-

(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

SMJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3