Kum Varshini Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., INSURANCE CO. LTD, 9TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE 121, DICKENSON ROAD, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042, REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24873 MFA No. 4569 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. H.G. MUNIRAJU S/O. GOVINDAPPA, HYADALU VILLAGE, MYLANAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A, ADVOCATE AND SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.499/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation granted in M.V.C.No.499/2020 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Causes and Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, dated 03.02.2021.

¶27

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident. According to the claimants, the deceased was

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24873 MFA No. 4569 of 2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. All the claimants are minor children of the deceased, who were dependant upon her. The Court below had held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.

¶31

When it comes to the compensation, as per the evidence on record, the Court below had considered the income at Rs.11,000/- per month and by deducting 1/3rd had granted the compensation as per the table given below:

¶32

Sl.	Heads	Amount
No.
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.19,71,000/-
2.	Loss of Filial consortium (Petitioner	Rs.80,000/-
	No.1 and 2)
3.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
5.	Medical Expenses (Rs.86,789/-	Rs.87,000/-
	rounded off Rs.87,000/-)
	TOTAL	21,68,000/-

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

¶34

submits that the accident had taken place in the year 2019 and the Court below had taken the notional income at Rs.11,000/-,

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:24873 MFA No. 4569 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

which is on the lower side, and the compensation needs to be enhanced.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondents also does not dispute the fact that the notional income for the year 2019 is Rs.14,000/-.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material available on record. In this case, the accident had taken place in the year 2019. Though there is no evidence on record with regard to the income, this Court is inclined to consider the notional of income at Rs.14,000/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the deceased was aged below 40 years, 40% has to be added towards 'future prospects', which would result in the income at Rs.19,600/-and 1/3^rd income has to be deducted towards the 'personal expenses' the contribution to the family would be Rs.13,067/-. Deceased is 40 years old and the relevant multiplier is '16'. Under the head of loss of dependency it would come to an amount of Rs.25,08,864/- (Rs.13,067 x 12 x 16 ) . The claimants being the minor children, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24873 MFA No. 4569 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

“loss of consortium” i.e., Rs.88,000/- . Towards 'funeral

¶44

expenses' , a sum of Rs.36,000/- is awarded. Towards 'medical expenses' , a sum of Rs.87,000/- is already awarded by the tribunal.

¶45

The claimants are therefore, entitled to the

¶46

compensation under the following heads:

¶47

SL. No.	Heads		Co Awar	mpensation ded by Tribunal	Compensation Awarded by this Court
1.	Loss of Dependency	:	Rs.	19,71,000.00	25,08,864.00
2.	Loss of Consortium (Petitioner No.1 and 2)	:	Rs.	80,000.00	88,000.00
3.	Funeral expenses	:	Rs.	15,000.00	36,000.00
4.	Loss of Estate	:	Rs.	15,000.00	--
5.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	87,000.00	87,000.00
	TOTAL	:	Rs	21,68,000.00	27,19,864.00
	Enhancement	:	Rs.	5,51,8	64.00

¶48

Altogether, the claimants are entitled for

¶49

compensation for an amount of Rs.27,19,864/- .

¶50

i) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24873 MFA No. 4569 of 2021

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Rs.21,68,000/- to Rs.27,19,864/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶54

ii) The respondent *No.1 -Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶55

iii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶56

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶57

v) No costs.

¶58

vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶60

VS

¶61

List No.: 4 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK

¶62

Corrected vide chamber order dated: 23/09/2025.

Kum Varshini v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum Varshini v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Vyas Vs Savitha Pareek

Sri. Prasanna Kumar C M Vs Smt. Mamatha G

Sri B Mohan Vs Smt Pushpalatha

Sri P S Karthick Vs Smt R Ishwarya

Mr. Valerian Dsouza Vs Mrs. Saritha Dsouza

Smt. Kalavathi Vs Chandra Sekhar Reddy