Parvathamma Vs Sri Suresh Kumar B

SRI. SURESH KUMAR. B S/O BYLAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13, DHARMAKALIKAMBA NILAYA, 4^TH CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, R.M.V. 2^ND STAGE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶19

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5^TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001, REP: BY ITS MANAGER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.G.S.MARULAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2(VC), VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7617/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-4, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Member, MACT, XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.7617/2018, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Though this appeal is slated for admission, with

¶31

consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

One Lakshminarayana, husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant No.2 on 07.09.2018, on Narasapur to Bellur road met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a car bearing registration No.KA-04-AA-4210. As a result, the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

said Lakshminarayana sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 08.09.2018.

¶38

It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 56 years and earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as a supervisor. He was contributing his earnings towards the family. Claimants are wife and daughter of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶39

Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending motor cycle in which the deceased was travelling.

¶40

The respondents in their respective written statement, denied petition averments. It denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that accident occurred due to the negligence of rider of the motor cycle. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶41

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

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The claimants to prove their case examined one

¶45

witness as PW-1 and marked 14 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. The respondent neither examined any witnesses nor marked the documents.

¶46

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that deceased died in a motor vehicle accident by involvement of the offending vehicle. Assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/p.m., added 10% of income towards future prospects, applied multiplier '12', deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses, applied multiplier as '9' and awarded Rs.7,04,000/-

¶47

as compensation under following heads:

¶48

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	5,94,000
Loss of consortium	80,000
Transportation of dead body and	15,000
funeral expenses
Loss of estate	15,000
Total	7,04,000

¶49

Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶53

appearing for the claimants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶54

12. The fact of the accident and death of

¶55

Lakshminarayana is not in dispute. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the same.

¶56

13. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the income of the deceased taken on the Tribunal is on lower side. He was a married person and claimant No.1 is his widow, but the Tribunal has deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenses, which is erroneous.

¶57

14. Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the daughter was not depending on the deceased. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another¹ , 50% of his income has to be deducted and there is no error committed by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶58

1 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

The Tribunal erred in deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses. The deceased was married. Since the deceased was a married person and his spouse is still alive, the correct deduction should be one-third as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Pranay Sethi² .

¶62

16. Undisputedly, the age of the deceased was 56 years as on the date of the accident. He was working as a supervisor. Since the claimants were unable to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. Following the chart of notional income prepared by KSLSA, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.12,500/- per month.

¶63

17. The deceased was aged 56 years, therefore, 10% of

¶64

his income has to be added towards future prospects. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sarla

¶65

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶67

8 -

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and others,³ the multiplier applicable to the facts of the present case is '9'. On the basis of the aforesaid factors, the amount of compensation is calculated under the head `loss of dependency'.

¶70

18. There is no dispute with regard to the compensation awarded under other heads.

¶71

19. Accordingly, the following compensation is awarded:

¶72

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	9,90,000
(Rs.12,500+10%x12x9x2/3)
Loss of consortium	80,000
funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Total	11,00,000
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	7,04,000
Enhancement	3,96,000

¶73

Thus, the claimants are entitled to enhanced

¶74

compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization.

¶75

3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Undisputedly, respondents are jointly and severally

¶80

liable to pay the compensation.

¶81

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶84

ii) The judgment and award dated 13.02.2020 , passed in MVC.No.7617/2018, by the Member, MACT, XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru stands modified;

¶85

iii) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization.

¶86

iv) The respondent No.2 is jointly and severally liable to deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of award.

¶87

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

¶88

vi) Draw award accordingly.

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:46618 MFA No. 2714 of 2021

¶90