Sri.Prakasha Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Limited

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LIMITED, MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.30, 3^RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR, BENGLAURU-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶20

SRI.UTHANUNARAPPA P S/O POOJARAPPA BYRATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KONDASHETTIHALLI POST, TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR DISTRICT-563 137.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1(VC), VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.6013/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.08.2018 passed by the MACT and V Additional Judge (SCCH-20), Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.6013/2018 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Though appeals are slated for admission, with

¶31

consent of learned counsel appearing for both the sides, they are taken up for final disposal.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶33

referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶34

The brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal were that :

¶35

The one Smt.Yallamma met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-08-8976, due to impact, she sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 65 years and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., by working as a coolie. She was contributing her earnings to the family. Claimants are sons and daughters were depending upon her earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶40

Respondent No.1 was the insurer and respondent

¶41

No.2 was the owner of the offending motorcycle.

¶42

The respondent No.1-insurer filed its written statement, denying the contentions of the claim petitioners. It denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the motor cycle on which deceased was traveling. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶43

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The claimants to prove their case examined two

¶47

witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 19 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-19. The respondent has not led oral or documentary evidence.

¶48

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record held that accident was caused due to negligence of driver of the offending lorry and awarded Rs.2,82,000/- as compensation under following

¶49

heads:

¶50

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	2,52,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Funeral and obsequies ceremonies	15,000
Total	2,82,000

¶51

11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as learned counsel for respondent-insurer.

¶52

12. The fact of the accident and death of Yallamma are not in dispute. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the same.

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

13. The main ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has taken notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side, the said contention is tenable, in comparison to the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Following the said chart her notional income may be taken as Rs.12,500/- per month. He further contend that no amount of compensation is awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'. As per the law laid down in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram,¹ the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants due to loss of love and affection. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the same. The said contention is also tenable.

¶56

14. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - insurer vehemently opposes for the said contention and according to him claimants are major sons and daughters and all are married. Therefore, they are not entitled for compensation

¶57

1 (2018) SC 1247

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

under the head loss of dependency. He further contend that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which is exorbitant and it will be compensated for taking the income on the lower side. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶62

15. Claimants have contended that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- month by working as a coolie. The Tribunal assessed the income as Rs.6,000/- per month. Following notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, her notional income is taken as Rs.12,500/- per month. The claimants are married and major sons and daughters and husband of the deceased was no more. Therefore, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of her income towards personal expenses. Since, deceased was aged about 65 years, question of awarding future prospects do not arise. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and others,² the multiplier applicable to the

¶63

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

facts of the present case is 7', which is not in dispute. On the basis of the aforesaid factors, the amount of compensation is calculated under the head loss of dependency'.

¶67

16. As per the law laid down in N ational Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors³ and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., case (supra), the claimants are entitled to compensation under the head loss of consortium and love and affection.

¶68

17. The insurer has not challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the claimants are not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency. Since all of them are major and married. Therefore, in this appeal, the said contention cannot be considered to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Moreover said contention is not tenable.

¶69

18. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent-insurer that to the enhanced amount of

¶70

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

compensation reasonable interest may be awarded, is tenable. Accordingly, claimants are entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

¶74

19. Accordingly, the following compensation is

¶75

awarded:

¶76

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	5,25,000
(Rs.12,500x12x7x1/2)
Loss of estate	15,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000x5)	2,00,000
Total	7,55,000
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	2,82,000
Enhancement	4,73,000

¶77

Thus, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization.

¶78

It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 - is the owner of the offending

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

vehicle. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶83

22. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶86

ii) The judgment and award dated 20.08.201 8 passed in MVC.No.6013/2018 by the MACT and V Addl.Judge (SCH-20), Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, st ands modified.

¶87

iii) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization

¶88

iv) The respondent No.2 shall deposit the amount within a period of two months from the date of award.

¶89

v) The apportionment, deposit and release etc., are as per the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶90

vi) Draw award accordingly.

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:46011 MFA No. 1186 of 2022

¶92