Smt S. Bindhu Kumari Vs Dhimantha Bharadwaj C R

DHIMANTHA BHARADWAJ C R AGED 22 YEARS, S/O S.N. RAMESH, R/AT PANCHAMUKHI, BESIDE GURUKULA SCHOOL (60 FT. ROAD) NEHRUNAGARA, VIJAYAPURA, CHICKMAGALUR CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶24

RAMESH S.N. AGED 56 YEARS, S/O NINGARAJU S.D., R/AT PANCHAMUKHI, BESIDE GURUKULA SCHOOL (60 FT ROAD) NEHRUNAGARA, VIJAYAPURA, CHICKMAGALUR CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶25

M/S THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SHOP NO. 2951, 2ND LOOR, OPP. APPROVA RESTAURANT, JLB ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSURU.

¶26

DEBASHIS BISMATH SINHA, MAJOR, S/O BISWANTH SINHA, R/AT D-303, S.V. REGENCY APARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSURU.

¶27

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SIGMA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, NO.C-1, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU. …RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. ASHOKA., ADVOCATE FOR

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:28176-DB MFA No. 1861 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT TO R-1, R-2 & R-4 VIDE ORDER DATED:20.02.2025)

¶33

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.09.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 604/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶38

This appeal is by the claimants in MVC

¶39

No.604/2018 on the file of the Principal Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru [for short ' the Tribunal ']. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:28176-DB MFA No. 1861 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

1988 [for short, 'the MV Act' ] granting a sum of Rs.30,39,500/- along with interest at 6% per annum as compensation. The Tribunal has computed the compensation under the following heads, but it has deducted Rs.10,00,500/- towards income tax.

¶44

1.	Towards loss of financial dependency	Rs.39,68,280-00
2.	Towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium	Rs. 40,000-00
3.	Towards estate	Rs. 15,000-00
4	Towards funeral expenses and transportation of body	Rs. 15,000-00
	*Total*	Rs.*40,38,280-00*¹

¶45

Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, the learned counsel for the claimants, submits that, Sri. Mahesha has died because of the injuries suffered in a road accident on 01.01.2018, that the third respondent will have to pay compensation to the claimants to indemnify the owner of the offending

¶46

1 This figure is rounded off to Rs. 40,40,000/-

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:28176-DB MFA No. 1861 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

vehicle and that the claimants are Sri. Mahesha’s

¶51

parents, widow and a minor son. Sri. H.C. Shivaramu argues that the claimants only seek intervention with the Tribunal's decision to allow a deduction of Rs.10,00,500/- towards income tax and grant Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Sri. C. R. Ravishankar and Sri. Ashoka, the learned counsels for the concerned Insurance Companies, are heard, and the learned counsels are categorical that they do not dispute the accident or that the third respondent will be liable to pay just compensation.

¶52

Sri Mahesha K.S. was a teacher

¶53

employed with a Government Aided Institution and was drawing a sum of Rs.22,046/- per month. The Tribunal, based on this income, has computed loss of dependency with an addition of 50% of the last drawn salary towards future prospects applying the multiplier of ' 15 '. This is just computation and does not call for any interference. However, there cannot

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:28176-DB MFA No. 1861 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

be any justification for deduction of Rs.10,00,500/towards income tax, and the only deduction towards the income tax will be that amount which was payable based on Sri Mahesha’s last drawn salary. It is inarguable that, with the standard deduction and the tax slab, the deceased was not required to pay any tax with his monthly salary at Rs.22,046/-. Therefore, there must be interference on this ground concluding that the deduction of Rs.10,00,500/- is erroneous.

¶58

Similarly, there is no justification to

¶59

grant only a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium when the deceased is survived by his widow, a young child [ aged only two and a half years as of the date of his death ] and his parents. Each of these four claimants would be entitled on their own account for loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/-. The comparative table of the amount as decided by the Tribunal and as decided by this Court is as under.

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:28176-DB MFA No. 1861 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

*Sl.* *No.*	*Heads*	*By the Tribunal* *[in Rs.]*	*By this Court* *[in Rs.]*
1	Towards loss of financial dependency	Rs.39,68,280/-	Rs.39,68,280/-
2	Towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium	Rs. 40,000/-	*Rs. 1,60,000/-*
3	Towards estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
4	Towards funeral expenses and transportation of body	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
	*Total*	*Rs. 40,38,280/-*	*Rs.41,58,280/-*
5	Amount that is deducted towards the supposed income tax		Rs.10,00,500/-
	Total		*Rs.51,58,780/-*
	Enhancement		*Rs.11,20,500/-*

¶64

ORDER

¶65

[A] The appeal is allowed in part granting enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.11,20,500/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of deposit but excluding 289 days as the delay in

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:28176-DB MFA No. 1861 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

filing the appeal is condoned subject to this decision.

¶70

[B] The third respondent is called upon to deposit such amount within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶71

[C] The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned amongst the appellants in the ratio as decided by the Tribunal.

¶72

[D] The first, third and fourth appellants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation according to the apportionment allowed by the Tribunal amongst them. The compensation payable to the second appellant shall be in deposit until he attains the age of majority.

¶73

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶74

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶75

RKA

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt S. Bindhu Kumari v. Dhimantha Bharadwaj C R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt S. Bindhu Kumari v. Dhimantha Bharadwaj C R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Krishna Murthy Vs Sri. Adarsh @ Adarsh B. Hampole

Sri. Raghavendra. N Vs Smt. Anuradha. C. v.

The Divisional Controller Vs Hanumanthegowda

Smt. Sarojamma Vs the Managing Director

Smt Esther Leena Vs Icici Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd

Sri Siddeshwara Poultry Vs Smt Priya Selvi