Smt. Jayamma Vs the New India Ass. Co. Ltd.

THE NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD., OFFICE AT NO.150/151, I^ST FLOOR, CHENNAJA COMPLEX, BESIDE POLICE STATION, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 060. REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶22

SRI. BASAVARAJU S., S/O. SHANKARAPPA B, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT: JUTTANAPALYA, HEJJALA, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. DR. P. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1932/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46009 MFA No. 2459 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.1932/2020, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶32

Though appeal is slated for admission, with consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, they are taken up for final disposal.

¶33

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

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that, on 30.05.2020 one Shankarappa was traveling as pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-ED-3491 from Juttarahapalya towards Kengeri side. At that time, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the said motor cycle. As a result, he sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Claimants have spent substantial amount towards medical

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46009 MFA No. 2459 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

expenses. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶38

Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

¶39

The respondent No.2 - insurer filed its written statement, denying the contentions of the claim petitioners. It denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶40

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

¶41

The claimants to prove their case examined one witnesses as PW-1 and marked 20 documents, as per Exs.P1 to P-20. The respondent neither examined any witnesses nor marked the documents.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46009 MFA No. 2459 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and

¶45

appreciating the evidence on record, awarded Rs.6,65,000/-

¶46

as compensation under following heads:

¶47

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	4,35,000
Towards consortium	2,00,000
Funeral expenses and loss of estate	30,000
Total	6,65,000

¶48

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶49

11. The Tribunal after assessing the materials available

¶50

on record, held that accident occured due to rash and negligent riding of motor cycle by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by respondent - insurer. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the same.

¶51

12. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal inspite of deducting 1/3^rd , has

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46009 MFA No. 2459 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenses. Only on that ground the appeal is filed.

¶55

13. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at page

¶56

Nos.11 and 12 has relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of:

¶57

i) Smt. Geeta vs. Smt. Sundarawwa and others¹ ,

¶58

ii) The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. T. Chandranaika and others² and

¶59

iii) Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation³ , deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased.

¶60

14. In the case of Sarla Verma (referred Supra), which is upheld by the constitutional Bench in National

¶61

Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others⁴ , if the deceased is married person, then 1/3^rd of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and in case of other dependants, it depends upon the number of

¶62

1 MFA.No.20759/2012

¶63

2 MFA.No.5465/2016

¶64

3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶65

4 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:46009 MFA No. 2459 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

dependants deduction has to be made. In this case, admittedly, claimant No.1 is the widow of the deceased. The Tribunal has not considered the said fact i.e. in case of married person 1/3^rd has to be deducted when he left behind him his widow. The Tribunal appears to have deducted 50% of his income, which is erroneous. It requires interference by this Court. Therefore, compensation for which the claimants are entitled under the head loss of dependency is Rs.14,500x12x5x2/3=5,80,000/against Rs.4,35,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶70

15. The compensation awarded under other heads are proper and not disputed by the claimants.

¶71

16. Accordingly, the following compensation is

¶72

awarded:

¶73

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency (Rs.14,500x12x5x2/3)	5,80,000
Loss of consortium	2,00,000
Funeral expenses and loss of estate	30,000
Total	8,10,000
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement	6,65,000 1,45,000

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:46009 MFA No. 2459 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Thus, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs..1,45,000/- 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

¶79

owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶80

19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶83

ii) The judgment and award dated 09.06.202 2 passed in MVC.No.1932/2020, by the I Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, stands modified.

¶84

iii) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its

¶85