The Manager Vs Smt. Anusha W/O Subash Bharmoji

SHRI NARAYAN, S/O RUKAMANNA CHOPADE, AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRIL., R/O GODHOLI TAL. KHANAPUR, AT PRESENT: R/AT C/O A.M. HUVANNAVAR SHARADA NIVAS, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BEHIND APMC KASHENATTI ROAD, ALNAVAR, TAL. ALNAVAR, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SURESH HUDADGADDI AND SRI. S.R. TARIHAL, ADVOCATES FOR R1-R4)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.1234/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, KHANAPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.34,55,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION & ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5810-DB MFA No. 101227 of 2025

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

¶32

The insurer is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the

¶33

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khanapur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) under the judgment and award, dated 30.12.2024, passed in M.V.C. No.1234/2022.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that, respondents No.1 to 4/claimants – being the parents, brother and sister of the deceased Manjunath Subash Bharmoji – filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental death of Manjunath Subash Bharmoji, in a road traffic accident that took place on 25.02.2022 involving Truck bearing registration No.KA-25/A7070. They stated that the deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of the accident, and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a tractor driver and was contributing his entire income towards maintenance of the family.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5810-DB MFA No. 101227 of 2025

¶36

On service of notice, the owner and the insurer of

¶37

the truck in question entered appearance and filed their separate objections. The owner of the truck in question, in his statement of objections, denied the averments of the claim petition and further stated that the vehicle was insured with the insurer (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the alleged accident. The insurer, in its statement of objections, denied the claim petition averments and further contended that no such accident had taken place as on the date mentioned by the claimants. Further, it stated that there was delay in filing the complaint. It also stated that the vehicle was falsely implicated and that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider.

¶38

Claimants examined claimant No.2 as P.W.1 and two more witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3, and marked 14 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14 in support of their case. The respondents did not examine any witness, but the insurance policy came to be marked as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the material on record, awarded a total compensation of

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5810-DB MFA No. 101227 of 2025

¶41

Rs.34,55,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.14,750/- per month, added 40% of the assessed income towards ‘future prospects’, deducted 1/4^th of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased, apart from granting compensation under the conventional heads of ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’.

¶42

The insurer is in appeal being aggrieved by deduction made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased at the rate of 1/4^th of the assessed income. It is stated that the deceased was unmarried and the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to have been made at 50% of the assessed income of the deceased.

¶43

Learned counsel, Sri. Rajashekhar S.Arani, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would contend that the Tribunal committed a grave error in deducting 1/4^th of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50% of the assessed income as the deceased was

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5810-DB MFA No. 101227 of 2025

¶45

unmarried. Apart from the above, the insurer has not urged any other ground.

¶46

Learned counsel, Sri. Suresh P.Hudedagaddi, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/claimants fairly submits that the deceased was unmarried and the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to be made at the rate of 50% of the assessed income of the deceased.

¶47

The submission of the learned counsel for the parties is considered carefully, and in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ , the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has to be accepted. The above decision makes it abundantly clear that where the deceased is a bachelor, 50% deduction should be made towards personal expenses of the deceased. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was a bachelor and hence, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased has to be at the rate of 50% of the assessed income of the deceased. There is no dispute with regard to the assessment of income, addition

¶48

1 (2009)6 SCC 121

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5810-DB MFA No. 101227 of 2025

¶50

towards future prospects and in applying the appropriate multiplier. Hence, the claimants would be entitled to the modified compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’, which would be in a sum of Rs.22,30,200 [Rs.14,750 + 40% =

¶51

Rs.20,650/- less 50% = Rs.10,325 x 12 x 18].

¶52

In view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others² and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.

¶53

Nanu Ram and Others³ , under the conventional heads the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/- (including 10% enhancement) each on the heads of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’, and Rs.44,000/(including 10% enhancement) each to claimants No.1 to 4 on the head of ‘loss of consortium’.

¶54

Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads:

¶55

1)	Loss of Dependency	Rs.	22,30,200/-
2)	Loss of consortium (to claimants No.1 to4)	Rs.	1,76,000/-
3)	Loss of Estate	Rs.	16,500/-
4)	Funeralexpenses	Rs.	16,500/-
	TOTAL	Rs.	24,39,200/-

¶56

2 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶57

3 2018 ACJ 2782

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5810-DB MFA No. 101227 of 2025

¶59

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,39,200/- instead of Rs.34,55,300/awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶60

Hence, we pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

a) The above appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

b) The judgment and award, dated 30.12.2024, passed in MVC No.1234/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khanapur is modified to the extent of holding that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,39,200/instead of Rs.34,55,300/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶64

c) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other aspects remains unaltered.

¶65

d) The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶66