Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director Ksrtc vs Sri M R Shivapraksh on 2 July, 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4659 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3009 OF 2022 (MV-D)
MFA No.4659/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. M.R.SHIVAPRAKASH,
S/O RAMEGOWDA D.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. AMBIKA,
W/O M.R.SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
3. BANUPRIYA,
D/O SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
Digitally MINOR, REPRESTED BY HER
signed by
SUMATHY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
KANNAN SRI M.R.SHIVAPRAKASH,
Location: APPELLANT NO.1,
HIGH COURT
OF KARNTAKA ALL ARE R/AT MADRAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK,
NOW R/O C/O M.R.JAYADEVAIAH,
HANDANAKERE HOBLI,
C.N.HALLY TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 214.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.V.MANJE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A, ADVOCATE)
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC-K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
2. THE DEPOT MANAGER,
KSRTC-TIPTUR DEPOT,
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RADHA B.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV
ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
13.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.584/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND XIX MACT,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
MFA No.3009/2022:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGARA,
BENGALURU-27,
REPT. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RADHA B.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M.R.SHIVAPRAKSH
S/O D.RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SMT. AMBIKA
W/O M.R.SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3. KUM. BANUPRIYA,
D/O SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
MAJOR.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/AT MADRAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANAKATTE HOBLI,
ARASIKERE TALUK,
NOW R/AT C/O MR.R.JAYADEVAIAH,
HANDANKERE VILLAGE,
HANDANAKERE HOBLI,
C.N.HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DEPOT MANAGER,
KSRTC-TIPTUR DEPOT,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.V.MANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH V/ORDER DTD: 30.05.2022)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.13.04.2021 IN MVC
NO.584/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.24,88,900/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE
PETITION TILL ENTIRE REALIZATION
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)
1. The present appeals seek to challenge the common
Judgment and Award dated 13.04.2021 in
M.V.C.No.584/2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge &
J.M.F.C., XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to
the claimants in a sum of Rs.24,88,900/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till entire realisation.
2. The Appeals though listed for admission, with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties are taken up
for final hearing and disposal today itself.
3. M.F.A.No.4659/2021 is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation and M.F.A.No.3009/2022 is
filed by KSRTC seeking to set aside the award of the
learned Tribunal.
4. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 31.12.2018
at about 1.00 p.m. when the deceased was going in his
motor bike TVS bearing Registration No.KA-06-S-5171
near Kankere Village on Handanakere – Mathighatta Road,
the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration
No.KA-06-F-0989 drove the said bus in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the deceased. Due to the said
impact, the deceased sustained head injuries and
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
succumbed at the spot. Immediately, the deceased was
shifted to PHC of Handanakere where the postmortem was
conducted. C.N.Halli police have registered a criminal case
against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
5. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act‘)
was filed by the parents and the sister of the deceased
contending that prior to the accident, the deceased was
doing agricultural and dairying by rearing cows and
earning salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. He was the only
breadwinner of the family. The claim petition was
contested by the respondents by filing objections to the
petition.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
“(i) Whether the petitioners prove that deceased
Premakumar @ Premanath died in the accident took place
on 31.12.2018, at about 01.00 p.m., on Handanakere to
Mathigatta road, near Kankare village, due to rash and
negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-F-
989 by its driver?
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
(iii) What Order or Award?”
7. In order to prove the case of the
appellants/claimants, the Appellant No.1/claimant No.1
was examined as PW.1, 14 documents were marked as
Exhibits P1 to P14 including Ex.P1/FIR, Ex.P2/Charge
Sheet, Ex.P3/PM report, Ex.P4/IMV Report. In addition,
the Identity cards and Bank Passbook of the deceased
were marked as Exhibits P5 to P13.
7.1 On behalf of the respondents/KSRTC, one Manjappa
was examined as RW.1 who produced only one document
being an Authorisation Letter Ex.R1.
8. The learned Tribunal, after examining the deposition
of the parties and documents such as charge sheet, IMV
report, complaint and FIR, held that accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle. The learned Tribunal further held that due to the
said accident the deceased had sustained injuries and
succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022HC-KAR
8.1 In order to award compensation, the learned
Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.11,750/- per
month, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted
1/3rd of his income towards personal and living expenses
by taking the appropriate multiplier at ’18’. Thus the
learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,967/- x 12 x 18 =
Rs.23,68,872/- rounded up to Rs.23,68,900/- under the
head of ‘loss of dependency’.
8.2 After considering the materials on record, the learned
Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of love
and affection, funeral expenses, loss of consortium. Thus,
the total compensation awarded was as follows:
Sl. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
No.
1 Loss of Dependency 23,68,900/-
2 Towards Love & Affection 50,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of consortium 40,000/-
5 Filial Consortium -
6 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
TOTAL 24,88,900/-
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
8.3 The learned Tribunal in all awarded a sum of
Rs.24,88,900/- along with interest at 6% from the date of
petition till entire realization.
9. As stated above, the Appeals have been filed by the
claimants as well as KSRTC and has been contested by
both the parties before this Court.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants states
that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and the
notional income as per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Committee for that year
was Rs.12,500/-. Thus the amount to be calculated for
loss of dependency was required to be taken as per the
notional income. Secondly, he submits that the amounts
awarded on other heads including the loss of consortium
has not been awarded in accordance with the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1. Lastly, it is his
contention that the interest awarded at 6% per annum is
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022HC-KAR
also not in accordance with the settled legal provision of
law.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondents/KSRTC on the
other hand fairly does not dispute that the notional income
for the year 2018 is Rs.12,500/- per month. He however
contends that no additional amounts towards loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses ought to
have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned
Counsel for the respondents/KSRTC further submits that
the driving licence of the deceased was not produced even
though the application for production of driving licence
was filed, since the application was dismissed.
12. On a question put to learned Counsel for the KSRTC,
as to whether the order of dismissal passed by the learned
Tribunal was challenged. The answer is in the negative.
13. Based on the evidence and the documents produced,
the question that arises for consideration before this Court
is whether the compensation and interest awarded by the
learned Tribunal is in accordance with law?
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
14. There is no dispute on the aspect of negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle/KSRTC/Respondents. However, based on the
evidence as well as records, the learned Tribunal erred in
assessing the notional income of the deceased. The
accident occurred on 31.12.2018. The notional income for
the year 2018 is Rs.12,500/-. The deceased was aged 18
years and had three dependants. In addition, in terms of
the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another2, and the Pranay Sethi
case, 40% future prospects have to be awarded and 1/3rd
of his income should be deducted towards personal and
living expenses using the applicable multiplier ’18’. Thus
the income of the deceased is taken at:
Rs.12,500/- + 40% = Rs.17,500/- (-) 1/3rd of
Rs.17,500/- = Rs.11,667/-.
Thus the compensation under the loss of dependency
is recomputed as follows:
2
(2009) 6 SCC 121
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.11,667 x 12 x 18=25,20,072/-
15. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi case loss of consortium is payable at
Rs.40,000/- to the three claimants, amounting to
Rs.1,20,000/-. As per the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi case the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of
estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and
transportation each. In view of the awarding
compensation on the head of loss of consortium, awarding
compensation on the love and affection does not arise as
the same is merged with consortium.
p
16. The order of the learned Tribunal dismissing the
application for production of driving licence was not
challenged either before this Court or before the Tribunal.
Therefore that aspect has attained finality.
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
17. On the aspect of the interest to be awarded by the
Tribunal, one of us, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, has in a
recent judgment captioned United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M And Others3, after analyzing
the precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court, has
found that an award of 9% interest is in accordance with
the settled provisions in the present day scenario,
especially in cases of death and permanent disability. It
was held that the award of 9% interest has been regularly
upheld by the Supreme Court. It is apposite to extract the
relevant portion of the judgment below:
“15. The other issue raised is on interest awarded. It is
apposite to set out the applicable provision. Section 171
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter
referred to as ‘the MV Act‘] provides for the award
of interest in the following manner:
“171. Award of interest where any claim is
allowed. – Where any Claims Tribunal allows a
claim for compensation made under this Act,
such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the
amount of compensation simple interest shall
also be paid at such rate and from such date not
earlier than the date of making the claim as it
may specify in this behalf.”
3
2026 SCC Online Kar 4090
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
15.1 A plain reading of the said provision shows
that Section 171 of the MV Act does not prescribe
any rate of interest and gives the discretion to the
learned Tribunal to do so. It further sets out that
the Tribunal shall award simple interest from the
date of filing the claim.
16. Interest is the compensation for the factum of
money being held back from the family of a
deceased or the injured. The Courts have from time to
time while discussing the principles for award of interest,
held that the interest is awarded not because of any
contractual obligation but because of the delay in
claimants receiving compensation after the
occurrence of the accident.
16.1 In Abati Bezbaruah vs. Geological Survey of
India4, the Supreme Court has held that the interest
rate must be fixed by taking all relevant factors including
inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by
RBI from time to time, how long the case is pending,
permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of
suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life
etc., into consideration. It was further held that
Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 nor
Section 4A(3) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923
are applicable in fixing the rate of interest. The
relevant extract is below:
“18. Three decisions were cited before us by Mr.
A.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant, in support of his
contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the
decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the
rate of interest was awarded on the amount of
compensation as a matter of judicial discretion.
The rate of interest must be just and reasonable
depending upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and taking all relevant factors
including inflation, change of economy, policy
being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from
time to time, how long the case is pending,
permanent injuries suffered by the victim,4 (2003) 3 SCC 148
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022HC-KAR
enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss
of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No
rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of
interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High
Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be
granted even if a claimant does not specifically
plead for the same as it is consequential in the
eye of law. Interest is compensation for
forbearance or detention of money and that
interest being awarded to a party only for being
kept out of the money which ought to have been
paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can
any rate of interest be fixed to have a general
application in motor accident claim cases having
regard to the nature of provision under Section 171
giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In
other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the
statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of
equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4-A(3)
of the Workmen’s Compensation Act are
applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest
in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the
interest at different rates depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my
opinion, there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in
awarding interest and the award of interest is solely
on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court as
indicated above.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
xxx xxx xxx
19. The Supreme Court in Supe Dei (Smt) and
Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited
and Another5 affirmed that 9% per annum is an
appropriate and consistently applied rate of
interest in motor accident compensation cases,
reinforcing uniformity in such awards. The relevant
extract of the judgment is set out below:
“11. Coming to the question of interest this Court in
Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.
5
(2009) 4 SCC 513
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
Ltd. observed that 9% is the appropriate rate of
interest to be awarded and that rate is being
applied in motor accident compensation cases.”
[
[Emphasis Supplied]
20. However recently, the Supreme Court in Jagadish
vs. Mohan6 awarded interest at 9% per annum on
compensation, reaffirming that such rate is
appropriate in cases involving death, serious injury
and substantial loss. The relevant extract of the
judgment is set out below:
“15. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is
unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the
toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In
this background, it would be a denial of justice
to compute the disability at 90%. The disability
is indeed total. Having regard to the age of the
appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In
the circumstances, the compensation payable to the
appellant on account of the loss of income, including
future prospects, would be Rs 18,14,400. In addition
to this amount, the appellant should be granted an
amount of Rs 2 lakhs on account of pain, suffering and
loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the
Tribunal towards medical expenses (Rs 98,908); for
extra nourishment (Rs 25,000) and for attendant’s
expenses (Rs 1 lakh) is maintained. The Tribunal has
declined to award any amount towards future
treatment. The appellant should be allowed an
amount of Rs 3 lakhs towards future medical
expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total
sum of Rs.25,38,308 by way of compensation.
The appellant would be entitled to interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation from the
date of the filing of the claim petition. The liability
to pay compensation has been fastened by the
Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner
and driver jointly and severally which is affirmed. The
amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a
period of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to
the appellant upon proper identification.”
6 (2018) 4 SCC 571
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
[Emphasis Supplied]
21. The Supreme Court in Savita Devi & Ors. vs SBI
General Insurance Company Limited and Others7
relying on the judgment in the case of Malarvizhi &
Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.8 has
enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 9%,
holding that “just compensation” must be
determined on principles of fairness,
reasonableness, and equitability, and that lower
rates may not adequately compensate claimants.
The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below:
“9. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeals
succeed and the impugned order(s) by the High Court
are set aside and that of the Tribunal is restored.
Furthermore, the rate of interest awarded @ 6%
per annum by the Tribunal is enhanced to 9%
per annum as has been held in Malarvizhi & Ors.
vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. and in
the interest of determining ‘just compensation’ based
fairness, reasonableness, and equitability.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
22. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme
Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Niru @ Niharika & Others9 wherein 9% interest
awarded was upheld noting that despite
fluctuations in economic conditions, such rate
remains justified, especially in cases involving
prolonged delay. It emphasized that interest should
ordinarily run from the date of filing unless delay is
clearly attributable to claimants. The relevant extract of
the judgment is set out thus:
“3. The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the
High Court against the award amounts raising
multifarious contentions. It was first contended that
the accident occurred only due to the rashness and7
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10053-10054/2024- order dated 02.09.2024.
8 (2020) 4 SCC 2289
2025 INSC 822 dated 14.07.2025
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022HC-KAR
negligence of the car driver. On the quantum, it was
submitted that admittedly the wife married in the year
2002 and the multiplier should have been only 7,
taken from the death of the first husband. The
exchange rate as adopted by the Tribunal, was
also assailed together with the interest granted
at the rate of 9%, which it was contended was
against the existing interest rates. Specific
contention was taken against the long delay in
disposing of the claim petition, which was filed
in the year 1995 and disposed of in the year
2017. The allegation was that the claimants who were
residing in the U.K. were solely responsible for the
delay occasioned. We see the said contention having
been taken relying on Annexure A-4 produced in the
memorandum of SLP filed.
xxx xxx xxx
7. Yet another contention taken up is the
interest granted at the rate of 9%. The
Insurance Company relies on Annexure P-1
history of the case to contend that there was
undue delay caused by reason of the
claimants having not entered their evidence.
From Annexure P-1, we see that the claim
petition was filed on 28.12.1995 and it first
came up for hearing on 11.09.2012. It is
seen from Annexure P-1 that the case was
posted for applicants’ evidence on various
dates from 2012 to 2016. However, there is
nothing to indicate that it was only by reason
of the claimants’ absence that the
consideration was delayed. Merely because,
on various dates, for 4 years, the case was
posted for the claimants’ evidence, it does not
necessarily mean that the claimants were
responsible for the delay. Long delays cannot,
without proper substantiation, be cast upon
the shoulders of one or other party to the lis.
We hence do not find any reason to find the delay
to be the sole responsibility of the claimants and
in that circumstance necessarily interest must run
from the date of filing of the claim petition, to the
date of payment; for which precedents are legion,
and we need not refer to them.
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022HC-KAR
8. Further contention taken is the higher rate
of interest of 9%, in challenge of which
several precedents were placed before us.
From the decisions perused what emanates is
that in the 1980’s, Courts were awarding
12% interest which stood reduced to 9% in
the 1990’s. With the advent of the 21st
century and the economic recession world
over, the interest rates fell considerably. But
even now the rates offered by National Banks
for long term deposits are 7% or more.
Considering the over-all circumstances
especially the long delay caused, we are of
the opinion that 9% interest rate granted by
the Tribunal is perfectly in order especially
noticing the accident having occurred in the
year 1995.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
23. In another a recent decision the Supreme Court in
Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. v. National Insurance
Company Limited And Others10 the issue of grant of
interest in motor accident compensation claims was
discussed and considered. In the accident in question,
one of the claimants survived and suffered grievous
injuries. The Tribunal had awarded compensation
together with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum. Although the Delhi High Court reduced the
compensation amount under certain heads, it
maintained the award of interest at 9% per annum.
The Supreme Court ultimately restored the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal and specifically directed that
payment be made with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum. Here again, the Supreme Court did not interfere
with the rate of interest and, in fact, reinforced the
obligation of timely payment by directing that in case of
delay beyond two months, an additional 9% interest per
annum would be payable on both the principal amount
and accrued interest. The relevant extract is below:
15. The High Court interfered and reduced the
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal only on the10 2025 INSC 526
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008-
2009 had to be excluded from consideration. It is not
in dispute that the deceased was a businessman. The
relevance of the Income Tax Return stems, in the
context of the Act, for the period which it relates to
i.e., the Financial Year concerned, and not on the date
on which it is filed with the Income Tax Department.
When faced with Returns for different Assessment
Years, it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to
adopt either the average income therefrom or choose
an Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good
reason to leave judicial discretion on the
Tribunal to adopt one of the afore-noted two
courses of action, bearing in nature the social
purpose and object behind the Act, which is a
beneficial legislation. It is quite unfortunate that
the High Court in the present case has dealt with the
matter in such a casual and superficial way where the
rightful claim of the appellants under a welfare
legislation has been drastically reduced without any
cogent reason on a very tenuous ground, which we
find to be totally unjustified. As pointed out in
Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563:
’13….In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after taking note of,
inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the
‘… Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and
welfare legislation that seeks to provide
compensation as per the contemporaneous
position of an individual which is essentially
forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is
chiefly concerned with making up for the past and
reinstating a claimant to his original position, the
compensation under the Act is concerned with
providing stability and continuity in peoples’ lives
in the future. …’
(underlined in original)
16. On the strength of the reasons afore-indicated,
the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the
original amount [Rs. 31,41,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One
Lakhs Forty-One Thousand)] awarded by the Tribunal
in MACT No. 357515/2016 as compensation is
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
restored. Payment be made to the Appellants by
the Respondent No. 1 at the rate of 9% interest
per annum after adjusting amount(s), if any,
that may have been paid during the
interregnum. The exercise be completed within
two months from today, failing which an
additional 9% interest per annum shall be
payable for the period of delay, both on the
principal amount as well as on the interest
component, till the date of actual payment. No
order as to costs, in the circumstances.
[Emphasis Supplied]
23.1 In S. Kumar v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd.11, case a similar view was taken where the Supreme
Court approved the award of interest at 9% per
annum, observing that the learned Tribunal’s grant
of 15% interest was ‘exorbitant’ but that the High
Court had still allowed a ‘comparatively higher’
rate of interest at 9% p.a.
24. Thus, an analysis of the precedents shows that the
award of interest over the last 5-10 years has infact
consistently been awarded @ 9% p.a. or upholding
such an award.
xxx xxx xxx
29. An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the
Supreme Court, reflects that the Supreme Court has
consistently held that the award of interest is
intended to recompensate the claimant for being
deprived of the use of money, which ought to have
been paid at the time of occurrence of the accident.
The rate of interest, therefore, must be just, fair and
reasonable, having regard to the prevailing economic
conditions and bank rates.
29.1. The award of interest is usually determined at
the prevailing bank rate of interest on a case-to-
case basis and at the rate which is just and fair and
reasonable.
11 (2019) INSC 217
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
29.2 There cannot be any ‘straitjacket formula’ in
determining the rate of interest and that the same
must depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The guiding principle remains that the
rate must neither be punitive nor non-existent but
must strike a balance between fairness to the
claimant and reasonableness to the insurer.
29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate in
case involving death and serious injury especially,
where there is a long delay in the claimants
receiving the compensation.
30. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year
2016 leading to the death of the wife of respondent No.1
and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The award
came to be passed in the year 2018. The learned
Tribunal has deemed it apposite to award interest
on the compensation @ 9% per annum. The award
of interest is not punitive as is fair considering the
prevailing economic condition and bank rates. In
addition, it is now 10 years since the date of the
accident.
31. The learned Trial Court has awarded interest at the
rate of 9% per annum. This Court finds no infirmity with
the Impugned Award of 9% interest in the
circumstances of the present case…”
[Emphasis Supplied]
18. The appellants/claimants lost their 18 years old son
and the only breadwinner of the entire family. Given the
facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the
recent developments in the law, this Court deems it fit to
enhance the interest from 6% to 8% considering the
present day scenario.
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
19. In view of the aforegoing discussion, the award of the
Tribunal requires to be recalculated in the following terms:
Sl. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
No.
01. Loss of Dependency 25,20,072/-
02. Loss of Consortium 1,20,000/-
(Rs.40,000x3)
03. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
04. Transportation of dead body, 15,000/-
funeral expenses charges and
miscellaneous expenses
Total 26,70,072/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 24,88,900/-
Enhanced compensation 1,81,172/-
20. The appellants/claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.26,70,072/- along with interest at
8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.
Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) M.F.A.No.4659/2021 is allowed in part;
(ii) M.F.A.No.3009/2022 is dismissed.
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
(iii) The Judgment and Award dated 13.04.2021
in M.V.C.No.584/2019 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge & J.M.F.C. & XIX MACT,
Chikkanayakanahalli is modified, enhancing the
compensation by Rs.1,81,172/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
(iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned
Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.
(v) Respondents/KSRTC is directed to pay the
enhanced compensation with interest as awarded
by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today.
Any amounts deposited with this Court will be
forwarded to the Tribunal for onward
transmission.
(vi) On such deposit of compensation, the same
shall be released in favour of the
appellants/claimants on filing of an appropriate
application for withdrawal of the amount in the
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:32972-DB
MFA No.4659 of 2021
C/w MFA No.3009 of 2022
HC-KAR
proportion as was set out in the Impugned
Award.
(vii) The Registry is directed to draw the
modified Award accordingly.
(viii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy
of this judgment and the records to the
concerned Tribunal.
(ix) Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
KSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
– 24 –
