Smt. Mahadevamma Vs Sri.Lokesh

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MAHARAJA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSURU-570 004. (INSURER OF THE SAID VEHICLE POLICY NO. 23172000846792800000 FROM 09.09.2014 TO 08.09.2015)

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(R1, R2(A) & (B) SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; SRI B PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.421/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:28915 MFA No. 3597 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

This appeal is by the appellants – claimants against the judgment and award dated 27.02.2019, in MVC No.421/2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Gundlupet, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶35

The parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial court for easy reference.

¶36

The appellants / claimants filed a petition under Section – 166 of the MV Act seeking total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum, for

¶37

the death of Shivegowda, who died in a road traffic accident which occurred on 29.01.2015.

¶38

The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death of Shivegowda are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum and the liability of

¶39

Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 17.10.2025

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28915 MFA No. 3597 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the insurance company to pay the compensation of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

¶43

Heard Sri. Bhanu Prakash H.V., learned counsel

¶44

for the appellants and Sri.B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 –Insurance company and perused the records.

¶45

Sri. Bhanu Prakash H.V. seeks enhancement of

¶46

compensation on two grounds. Firstly, under the head of loss of dependency and secondly under the head of filial consortium. He submits that the accident has occurred on 29.01.2015. As per the income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in respect of the unskilled labours for the year 2019 is at Rs.9,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the income of the deceased in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY

¶47

Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 17.10.2025

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28915 MFA No. 3597 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

SETHI¹ . Further, he submits that in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS² , the Tribunal has failed to award filial consortium since there are three claimants, whereas the Tribunal has granted sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of consortium which requires to be enhanced.

¶51

6(a). Further, Sri. Bhanu Prakash H.V., learned counsel submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 592 , the Hon’ble Apex Court is at paragraph No.110(iii) has held at that mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves , defences available to the Insurer against either the Insured or the third parties. Accordingly, directed the Insurance Company to pay primarily and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.” Accordingly, he sought to allow the appeal, modify the judgment and award and enhance the compensation.

¶52

Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.B. Pradeep supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the claimants and awarded just and proper compensation and the same does not call for interference or modification at the hands of this Court.

¶53

1 2009 ACJ 1298

¶54

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶55

Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 17.10.2025

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28915 MFA No. 3597 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶59

parties, perused the record, the only question that arises for consideration of this Court is:

¶60

Whether the compensation awarded by the

¶61

Tribunal befit within the expression just compensation?

¶62

1(a).Whether the Tribunal is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company absolutely?

¶63

My answer to the above points are partly in affirmative. Admittedly, the accident had occurred on 29.01.2015. As per the income fixed by the KSLSA, the notional income fixed is at Rs.9,000/- for the year 2015. The multiplier applicable is ‘18’ considering the age of the deceased as below 25 years. As per the judgment of PRANAY SETHI (supra), 40% has to be added towards future prospects, deducting 50% of the compensation towards personal expenses of the deceased since he was a bachelor. Further, a sum of Rs.40,000/- to be awarded to each of the claimants. In the instant case, there are three claimants. Accordingly, same requires consideration.

¶64

Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 17.10.2025

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28915 MFA No. 3597 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RASMITA BISWAL & OTHERS VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER³ , there shall be an enhancement of 10% on the conventional heads for every three years, from 2017. Taking into consideration of the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of consortium’, being Rs.1,20,000/-, the escalation at 10% + 10% works out to Rs.24,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants / claimants being the parents and brother of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,44,000/(Rs.40,000 x 3 + 20%) towards ‘Loss Of filial Consortium’.

¶68

Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘Loss Of Estate’ And ‘Funeral And Transportation’ respectively, along with 10% + 10% escalation. Therefore, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 x 10%

¶69

3 (2022) 2 SC 767

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28915 MFA No. 3597 of 2021

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

10%) towards ‘Loss Of Estate’ And ‘Funeral And

¶73

Transportation’.

¶74

Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are entitled

¶75

for enhanced compensation as follows:

¶76

Loss Dependency	:	Rs.	13,60,800/-
(Rs.9,000 + 40% x 12x 18 x 50/100)
Loss of filial consortium	:	Rs.	1,44,000/-
Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses	:	Rs.	36,000/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	15,40,800/-

¶77

The total compensation re-determined by this

¶78

Court works out to Rs.15,40,800/as against Rs.8,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,14,800/- (Rs.15,40,800 – Rs.8,26,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent No.3 – Insurance is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:28915 MFA No. 3597 of 2021

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Six Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of

¶83

this judgment.

¶84

“13(a). As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – claimant, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another (cited supra), the Insurance Company is primarily made liable to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.”

¶85

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

i) The appeal is Allowed-In-Part ;

¶88

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in award dated 27.02.2019, in MVC No.421/2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet is modified;

¶89

iii) The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,14,800/(Rs.15,40,800 – Rs.8,26,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization;

¶90

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent No.3 – Insurance company, within Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; iv(a) The Insurance Company primarily

¶91

deposit the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶92

Retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 17.10.2025

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:28915 MFA No. 3597 of 2021

¶94

10 -

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

v) On deposit, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 40% each and appellant No.3.3

¶97

is entitled for 20% of the amount.

¶98

vi) Out of the 40% each in respect of appellant Nos.1 and 2, 20% to be deposited in any nationalized bank in the name of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 in any interest bearing F.D. for a period of three years, balance 20% each shall be released on proper identification.

¶99

vii) Sofar as appellant No.3 is concerned, 10% out of 20% to be deposited in any nationalized bank in the name of the appellant No.3 in any interest bearing F.D. for a period of three years, balance shall be released on proper identification.

¶100

viii) No order as to cost.

¶101

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶102

BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 JLR

Smt. Mahadevamma v. Sri.Lokesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mahadevamma v. Sri.Lokesh

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Syed Nawaz Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police

Sri. Kishore Kumar Vs Royal Sundaram General

Sri C Manjunatha Vs Sri E Rangesh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ramachandraiah

M D Muheeb Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Sri Sulaiah Vs the Reliance Generla Insurance Co. Ltd.