Susheelamma Vs Bharath R

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.68/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶29

AND

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

The appellants - claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.12.2021 passed in MVC.No.68/2019 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Ramanagara (for short the 'Tribunal').

¶38

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶39

Brief facts of the case are that, on 23.01.2019 around 9.15 pm, the pillion rider Sri Byrashetty (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3, was proceeding on a bike along with his son Sri Santhosh B who was the rider of the scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-02HJ-8994, and when they reached near Rajarajeshwari

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Layout, Ramanagara-Kanakapura Road, the driver of the TATA Indica car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-6362 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter and as a result of the said accident, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Narayana Hospital, Ramanagara and later he was shifted to Rajarajeshwari Hospital, however he succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation under various heads.

¶43

Sri Shantharaj K, learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants vehemently contended that, the deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of accident and he was doing agricultural and sericulture work and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and the same has been deposed by PW-1. However, the Tribunal considered the notional

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- which is on the

¶48

lower side.

¶49

Further, he contends that there are three claimantsdependants and hence the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3^rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased but, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% towards his personal expenses, which is contrary to law. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶50

Sri Janardhan reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that, on considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record has awarded just and reasonable compensation under each head, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

original records of the Tribunal, the point that would arise for our consideration in the appeal is:

¶56

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

¶57

In the instant appeal, the respondent - Insurance Company has not disputed the accident in question, the cause of death of the deceased and the liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶58

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is considered, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2019 and no documentary evidence is placed on record regarding the income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee,

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Bengaluru, the income assessed by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable one.

¶62

The deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of accident. The respondent - Insurance Company has not disputed this aspect. Hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of the deceased is '9'.

¶63

The deceased died leaving behind his wife and two children. Hence, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd towards his personal expenses, but the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

¶64

Further, the Tribunal has considered addition of 10% towards future prospects of the deceased as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL

¶65

INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI and

¶66

OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , as the deceased is below the age group of 60 years. Hence, the 'loss of dependency' is reckoned as under:

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Rs.14,000 + Rs.1,400 (10%) = Rs.15,400/Rs.15,400 - Rs.5,133 (1/3^rd ) = Rs.10,267/Rs.10,267 x 12 x 9 = Rs.11,08,836/-

¶71

The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under conventional heads and awarded Rs.16,500/- towards 'Loss of estate', Rs.16,500/- towards 'Loss of funeral expenses', and Rs.1,32,000/- towards 'Loss of consortium'. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRURAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled for compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’ at Rs.40,000/- each which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3), Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.61,997/-

¶76

towards 'Medical expenses' which is fair and reasonable

¶77

one. Hence, no interference is called for in that regard.

¶78

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following

¶79

compensation:

¶80

HEADS	Rs.
Loss of dependency	11,08,836
Loss of consortium	1,20,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Medical Expenses	61,997
TOTAL	13,20,833
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	10,58,597
ENHANCED COMPENSATION	2,62,236

¶81

In the result, we pass the following:

¶82

O R D E R

¶83

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶84

ii. The judgment and award dated 30.12.2021 passed in MVC.No.68/2019 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Ramanagara, is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a

¶85

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

total compensation of Rs.13,20,833 /- as against Rs.10,58,597/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,62,236 /- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realisation.

¶88

iii. Respondent - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶89

iv. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶90

v. Draw modified award accordingly.

¶91

vi. No order as to costs.

¶92

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith.

¶93

11 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:37903-DB MFA No. 1168 of 2022

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed off, as they do not survive for any consideration.

¶97

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶98

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶99

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Susheelamma v. Bharath R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheelamma v. Bharath R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvathamma Vs Sri Indresh H R

Mr. Riyaz Alias Mohammed Riyaz Vs Mr. Abdul Basheer

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Zeenath

Shri Danush B Praveen Vs the State of Karnataka

The Income Tax Officer Vs Dr Ramdas Madhava Pai

Dr. C Anusha Vs Nation National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences