The court enhanced motor accident compensation awarded by the MACT. The court held that the deceased's two sons were dependants, applied 40% future prospects to the income, and recalculated dependency and consortium losses, increasing the total award.
Compensation enhanced from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 18,70,120/- with interest at 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:12735 MFA No. 1585 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1585 OF 2019
(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.389, WARD NO.15, BESIDE HANUMAN TEMPLE MARUTHI NAGAR, SIDDALAGATTA TQ CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-562105
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA A B.,ADVOCATE)
…APPELLANTS
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. J.R. JAGADISH.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED07.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.5292/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SCJ & MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-17], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award dated 07.07.2018, passed in
MVC No.5292/2017, by the MACT, Bengaluru the claimant is before this court seeking enhancement of the compensation.
death of the deceased in the accident. The claimants are the husband and two sons of the deceased. It is their case that on 14.07.2017 at about 11.00 a.m., when the deceased was riding as pillion rider in motorcycle ridden by her son on the left side of the road, at that time a tractor driven by its driver in a high speed came in a, rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle and caused the accident. Due to the impact she fell down and came under the rear wheel of the tractor, and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. According to the claimants the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m., by doing Silk Farming. The court below held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. When it comes to the compensation on the ground that the claimants are not dependants had granted only an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Altogether the court below had granted an
NC: 2024:KHC:12735 MFA No. 1585 of 2019
amount of Rs.70,000/- along with interest at 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved thereby the claimants are before this court.
submits that the children are just 25 and 21 years old and that they have no independent source of income and they are still depending on the income of the parents. The court below had failed to consider this aspect. The Court below has not considered the husband as dependant but should have considered the children as dependants and ought to
have granted the compensation. The job that the deceased was doing was a skilled job and the court below ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation.
side, perused the entire material on record. In this case the deceased was aged 40 years and according to the claimants the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no evidence led in that regard. However, considering the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the accident had occurred in the year 2017, notional income has to be considered at Rs.11,000/- as it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-, this court is taking the income as an amount of Rs.10,000/- deceased was aged 40 years she is entitled for future prospects at 40% at Rs.4,000/- i.e., Rs.14,000/. Then coming to the dependency husband cannot be considered as dependant of the deceased but however the two sons who are aged 25 and 21 years and they are not yet settled in life. This court is considering them as dependants. Hence 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses i.e., Rs.4,666/and
contribution to the family would be Rs.9,334/-. Therefore,
the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.16,80,120/- towards Loss Of Dependency . Towards loss of consortium for the husband and two sons, they are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000
x 3) . The claimants are awarded an amount of Rs.36,000/- towards Funeral Expenses .
compensation under the following heads:
| Description | By Tribunal | By this Court | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of Dependency | Rs. | 40,000/- | 16,80,120/- |
| Loss of Consortium | Rs. | 15,000/- | 1,44,000/- |
| Transportation & Funeral Expenses |
Rs. | 15,000/- | 36,000/- |
| Legal Expenses | Rs. | 0 | 10,000/- |
| Total | Rs. | 70,000/- | 18,70,120/- |
1 (2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2024:KHC:12735 MFA No. 1585 of 2019
Enhancement Rs.18,00,120/-
8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed ,
enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.18,70,120/-.
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
ii) The apportionment made by the court below with regard to the compensation shall hold good.
iii) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
v) No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/JUDGE
JJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the award for dependency and consortium requires enhancement?
Whether the deceased's sons are entitled to be considered as dependants?
What is the correct quantum of compensation payable by the insurance company?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and AnotherReferred¶44
V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER 2014 11 SCC 178 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nagarajappa
Manohara N
Anil Kumar N
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Naryanасhwamy H V
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
