Smt.Lalitha Vs Mr. Lancy Montero

ALL ARE RESIDING AT D. NO. 145, MANNIKERE HOYSALALU, JANNAPURA MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALURU-577 132, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 4^TH MILE STONE, MULLAKADU, KAVOOR, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT PIN-575 012.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MR. LANCY MONTERO, S/O. LATE. SABASTIN MONTERO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLLYBAIL HOUSE, KARADAGODU, MUDIGERE, CHIKMAGALURU PIN-577 132.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:32029 MFA No. 4422 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SCO NO. 41-42-43 SECTOR- 31, GURGAON- 122 001,

¶22

LOCAL OFFICE: BHARATH BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, P.M. RAO ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT PIN-575 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(VIDE ORDER DATED 23.06.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W, SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.595/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA, PARTLY 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.04.2025 passed in MVC No.595/2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Member, MACT, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada,

¶29

seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32029 MFA No. 4422 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶33

The facts of the case is that Mr.Lakshman, aged about 43 years met with an accident on 1.12.2023. His wife and children filed the claim application claiming compensation for an amount of Rs.40 lakhs. The tribunal after considering the evidence on record, granted Rs.16,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realization.

¶34

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellants, in which it is contended that the deceased was aged 45 years and earning Rs.1000/per day. Also the personal expenses were wrongly deducted as 50% instead of 1/3^rd and the income was not taken properly. Also, there has to be escalation of conventional heads at the rate of 10%, as per the guidelines, given in case of National Insurance

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32029 MFA No. 4422 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 wherein loss of parental consortium was also not granted for children. Further the interest is on the lower side. Therefore, requested for enhancement.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased Lakshman was working as coolie, however, no evidence was recorded in the court. Therefore, the Tribunal considered his income as Rs.14000/- per month. But he met with an accident in the year 2023, as per the guidelines of Karnataka Legal Services Authority, his income is to be taken as Rs.16,000/- per month. Further, 25% to be taken towards future prospects as per Sarla Verma case stated supra. Then his income would be Rs.20,000/- (16000 + 25% of 16000). His wife and children 3 in numbers are his dependents as such 1/3^rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, loss of income is arrived at as below:

¶39

20,000 – 1/3rd of 20000 = 13,333/-

¶40

*Retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 31.01.2026.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32029 MFA No. 4422 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Hence, loss of dependency is Rs.13333 X 12 X 14 =

¶44

Rs.22,39,944/-.

¶45

Further appellant Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled for parental consortium of an amount of Rs.44,000/- each, total of Rs.88,000/-. Spousal consortium of wife is to be taken at Rs.44,000/-.

¶46

Thus in all, award of compensation passed by

¶47

the Tribunal is modified as under:

¶48

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	22,39,944
Loss of parental	88,000
consortium
Loss of consortium(wife)	44,000
Loss of Estate	15,000
Funeral Expenses	15,000
Medical Bills	1,24,000
Total	25,25,944

¶49

*Retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 31.01.2026.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32029 MFA No. 4422 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total enhanced compensation of Rs.25,25,944/- along with interest as prayed for 6% p.a. as against already awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶56

ii. The judgment and award dated 01.04.2025 passed in MVC No.595/2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Member, MACT, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, is modified;

¶57

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,25,944/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs.16,64,000/-.

¶58

*Retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 31.01.2026.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32029 MFA No. 4422 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order.

¶62

v. On such deposit, appellants are entitled for the compensation as per the apportionment of the tribunal and are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶63

SD/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶64

AKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25

Smt.Lalitha v. Mr. Lancy Montero

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lalitha v. Mr. Lancy Montero

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

Rangegowda Vs Shankarnagu

Pandu Vs Kum Veena

Sri Mahaboob Pasha Vs K S Adinarayana Swamy

Smt Sundari Vs Mr K Chandraprakash Shetty

Sri Siddesh Gupta K Vs M/S National Insurance

Mr Sundara Poojary Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.