Smt. Radha Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD:24.11.2023, NOTICE TO R2 DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3166/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU(SCCH-7) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32678 MFA No. 3753 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 24.01.2018 passed in MVC No.3166/2016 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIV ACMM, Court Of Small Causes, Member, Mact-7, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶30

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is deemed to be served and unrepresented. Ranks of the parties are retained as per the Tribunal.

¶31

The brief facts of the case is that the Wife and children and the parents of deceased Manjunath who met with an accident on 01.05.2016 filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.14,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32678 MFA No. 3753 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred, in which it is mainly contended that on 01.05.2016, at about 08:30 p.m., Manjunath was standing to cross Bangalore - Kunikal Nimhans Hospital road near KG Nagara and the driver of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. But the Tribunal assessed the contributory negligence of the petitioner as 10%.

¶35

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that assessing of the contributory negligence at 10% is not proper. He was working as a welder and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken income as Rs.10,000/- per month. No future prospects were calculated. Therefore, requested for modification of the order.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the deceased Manjunath was standing by the side of the road, where there was no zebra crossing and thus

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32678 MFA No. 3753 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

there was contributory negligence on his part and the Tribunal rightly assessed the contributed negligence as 10%. However, the manner of accident shows that he was standing by the side of the road, where there was no zebra crossing and the offending vehicle dashed him. Merely because he was standing by the side of the road, it cannot be said that he contributed for the accident. Therefore, the argument of the respondent counsel cannot be accepted. The contributory negligence of 10% by the tribunal, is hereby set aside.

¶40

Tribunal has considered his income as Rs.10,000/- per month, this court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. As he was aged 38 years, the multiplier is to be taken as 15. Regarding the loss of dependency, as there are 5 dependents, ¼ is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and addition of 40% is to be taken as future prospects as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and

¶41

Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32678 MFA No. 3753 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1219 and also in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 . Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as follows, (Monthly Income) Rs.10,000/- x (Future prospectus) 40% = (Total monthly income) 14,000/- and 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenditure (Rs.14,000/- x 1/4th = Rs.3,500/-). Rs.14,000 – 3,500 = Rs.10,500/-. So loss of dependency would come to Rs.10,500 x 12 x 15 = 18,90,000/-.

¶45

Petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium compensation. Apart from that, they are also entitled for conventional heads i.e., towards loss of love and affection and funeral, obsequies ceremony and conveyance of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000+Rs.15,000)

¶46

Thus in all, components awarded by this court

¶47

are as below,

¶48

*Page Nos.6 to 8 retyped and replaced vide court order dated 25.09.2025.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32678 MFA No. 3753 of 2018

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Loss of dependence 18,90,000
Loss of consortium 2,00,000
(Rs.40,000 to petitioner No.1
+Rs.80,000 to petitioner Nos.2
and 3 + Rs.80,000 to petitioner
Nos.4 and 5)
Towards loss of love and 30,000
affection and funeral,
obsequies ceremony and
conveyance
Total 21,20,000

¶52

Further, as petitioner No.4 died during the pendency of the appeal, i.e., on 20.06.2025, therefore, the amount apportioned in his favour is to be given to the petitioner No.5, who is the wife of petitioner No.4. Therefore, his apportionment amount is to be given to petitioner No.5. The other apportionment granted by the trial Court stands good. The contributory negligence of 10 % on the part of the petitioner is set aside.

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32678 MFA No. 3753 of 2018

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total enhanced compensation of Rs.21,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

¶56

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶59

ii. The judgment and award dated 24.01.2018 passed in MVC No.3166/2016

¶60

on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIV ACMM, Court Of Small Causes, Member, Mact-7, Bengaluru, is hereby modified.

¶61

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs . 21,20,000 /- along with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.14,20,000/granted by the tribunal.

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:32678 MFA No. 3753 of 2018

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

iv. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order.

¶66

v. The contributory negligence of 10 % on the part of the petitioner is set aside.

¶67

vi. On such deposit of the amount petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same, as per the apportionment of the tribunal.

¶68

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶69

AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt. Radha v. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Radha v. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Moula @ Syed Moula Vs Raghunathreddy

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Nani @ Chandrika

The Manager Vs Lokesh Mastappa Naik

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. Krishnamurthy

The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mangali Bai

Nijagunaiah Vs Rudraiah