Jyothi Vs the Divisional Controller

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1344/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, HOLENARASIPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶40

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

¶41

3 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:49606-DB MFA No. 10347 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶47

In respect of an accident, which is not in dispute and

¶48

which has occurred on 19.07.2014, the Tribunal has

¶49

awarded a sum of Rs.9,70,000/- as compensation for the

¶50

death of one Mohan Kumar.

¶51

The learned counsel for the claimants contended that though the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, the Tribunal has erred in attributing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle - deceased. He further contended that that the sums awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are meager. He also contended that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the deceased, who was doing business of domestic animals. As such, he prays to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

¶52

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49606-DB MFA No. 10347 of 2018

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Per contra , learned counsel for the KSRTC contended

¶55

that the Tribunal has rightly attributed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He also contended that the sums awarded under different heads are exorbitant. As such, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶56

We have carefully perused the impugned award and also the Trial Court records.

¶57

The accident in question is not in dispute. However,

¶58

as regards the contributory negligence, since the spot mahazar and sketch along with photographs indicates the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly attributed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle - deceased.

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49606-DB MFA No. 10347 of 2018

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

As regards quantum of compensation, since the accident was of the year 2014, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services, which would be Rs.8,500/-. Since the deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of the accident and was self employed, 40% requires to be added towards future prospects and the multiplier to be adopted is '16' and 1/4^th requires to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the loss of dependency at Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.8,500 + 40%

¶62

1/4 X 12 X 16).

¶63

The claimants, being the wife, children and parents of deceased, would be entitled to Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium and Rs.36,300/- under conventional heads as per the judgment in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.

¶64

PRANAY SETHI & OTHERS - (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

¶65

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49606-DB MFA No. 10347 of 2018

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned

¶68

award, would be entitled to the following sums:

¶69

Sl.
Amount
Particulars (In
Rs.)
1. Loss of Dependency 17,13,600
2. Loss of Consortium 2,42,000
3. Conventional Heads 36,300
Total 19,91,900

¶70

Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.9,45,950/- (50% of Rs.19,91,900/and after deduction of Rs.50,000/- paid as interim compensation) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. However, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period as per order dated 19.06.2025.

¶71