M. Rajanna Vs Dhananjaya. S. R.

HEMAVATHI W/O M RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO: MARANAYAKANAHALLI, CHIKKAJALA JALA HOBLI AND POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN - 562157

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI .,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

DHANANJAYA. S. R. S/O RAJACHARI NO. 19, GRUHALAXMI LAYOUT NELAGADARANAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU – 560073

¶16

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD NO. 121, THE ESTATE 9TH FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD, M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 01

¶17

NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE PUTTENARASAIAH R/AT NO 2, 16TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:23649 MFA No. 3039 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

H N THOTA SHIVAPURA, BANGALORE - 78

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWEDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 01.07.2025)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18/01/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.4582/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The above appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988¹ challenging the judgment and award dated 18.01.2019 passed in MVC No.4582/2016 by the XVI Additional Judge & MACT, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-14), Bengaluru² seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶29

The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 18.1.2019 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `15,42,000/- together with interest @7% per

¶30

1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’

¶31

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23649 MFA No. 3039 of 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

annum and fastened the liability on the Both Respondent Nos.1

¶35

& 2 – insurer to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the above appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

¶37

The finding of the Tribunal on negligence and on liability is not under challenge and have attained finality. The only question to be adjudicated in the above appeal is with regard to the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶38

Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri Shripad V. Shastri, appearing for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel Sri B.C.Shivannegowda appearing for the respondent No.2/insurer. Perused the records of the Tribunal.

¶39

It is forthcoming that the claimant was aged 24 years as on the date of the accident and is averred to be working as Senior Lead Assistant in Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. It is averred that the deceased was earning a monthly income of `16,875/-. The salary certificate (Ex.P16) has been

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23649 MFA No. 3039 of 2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

produced to demonstrate the same. The Human Resource and Admin Executive of the employer of the deceased has been examined as PW.2 who has deposed that deceased was working with the employer for four years prior to his death and was drawing a salary of 16,875/- per month. The Tribunal has held that since the appointment letter is not produced, assessed the income of the deceased as 10,000/- per month. The said finding is ex-facie erroneous having regard to the fact that the Bank statement of the deceased has also been produced and the bank manager has also been examined as PW.3 who has produced the Bank Statement which demonstrates remittance of the monthly salary. The Bank Statement (Ex.P18) discloses the remittance of periodical amounts as salary viz., 13,526/-, 12,511/-, 14,282/- and other amounts. It is forthcoming from salary certificate (Ex.P16) that the basic salary was paid as 6,250/-, special allowance of 2,633/-, the attendance bonus was 2,917/- and the appreciation amount of 3,902/-. In view of the same, it is just and proper that a total income of the claimant be assessed as 15,702/-. The deductions made towards provident fund and Employees State Insurance are not liable to be deducted.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:23649 MFA No. 3039 of 2019

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶47

case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.³ and considering the age of the deceased, 40% of income of the deceased is to be added to his income by way of future prospects. As the deceased was unmarried, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The applicable multiplier is ‘18’. Therefore, the compensation on the head of loss of dependency is re-assessed as (15,702/- + 40% - 50% x 12 x 18) 23,74,142/- as against `15,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

As per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Nanu Ram⁴ , claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation of 40,000/- each on the head of loss of consortium with escalation at 20% and accordingly a sum of (48,000/- x 2) 96,000/- is awarded towards the same. 15,000/- each is required to be awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses with escalation at 20%.

¶49

3 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶50

4 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:23649 MFA No. 3039 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Accordingly, a sum of `18,000/- each is awarded towards the

¶55

same.

¶56

In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re-

¶57

assessed as follows:

¶58

Sl.No	Compensation Head	Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1	Loss of dependency	15,12,000.00	23,74,142
2	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	15,000.00	18,000.00
3	Loss of estate	15,000.00	18,000.00
4	Loss of consortium	-	96,000.00
	Total	15,42,000.00	25,06,142.00

¶59

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to an enhanced

¶60

compensation of (25,06,142/- - 15,42,000/-) `9,64,142/-.

¶61

In view of the aforementioned, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The appeal is allowed in part;

¶64

ii) judgment and award dated 18.01.2019 passed in MVC No.4582/2016 by the XVI Additional Judge & MACT, Court of Small Causes,

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:23649 MFA No. 3039 of 2019

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Bengaluru is hereby modified to the extent ordered herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered;

¶69

iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of `9,64,142/- together with interest at 7% per annum.

¶70

iv) Respondent No.2 – insurer shall deposit the said compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks;

¶71

v) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release the said amount to the claimants in the ratio of shares as apportioned by the Tribunal under the impugned award.

¶72

vi) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶73

vii) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly;

¶74

No costs.

¶75

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶76

BS

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

M. Rajanna v. Dhananjaya. S. R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rajanna v. Dhananjaya. S. 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

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Shobha

Sri Mahaboob Jan Vs T Krishna Kishore

Smt. Noorjahan Vs Mr. Hasanabha

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Palani Swamy

K P Ramalingu Vs M/S Icici Lambardo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Mohammed Rehaman Vs Ashik C