The Manager Vs Smt. Anasuya

SHANTH SHETTY M K S/O KRISHNA SHETTY K M., AGED 69 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT MUTHURAYANA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HANAHALLI POST, HALAGUDU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571103.

¶26

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

NIKETHAN

¶29

S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. NO. 99, C/O. VASUDEV SWAMY BUILDING, BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE, CHUDASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560100.

¶30

NOORULLA, S/O. LATE AMMERSAB, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. NO. 7/1A, JAYARAM REDDY LAYOUT, NEAR LAKASA HOTEL, KASAVANAHALLI, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560035.

¶31

SMT. SUMA @ SUMALATHA, W/O. GANESH, MAJOR, PRESIDENT OF GURUKULA LITTAL CHAMPS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, NO.377, OPP UNION BANK, SURYA BAKERY MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSORE - 570016. (EXPARTE).

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2; SRI. MANJUNATHA H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶34

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4982/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-23), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.56,88,700/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶35

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

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶41

This appeal is by an Insurer calling in question the judgment and award dated 26.11.2024 in MVC No.4982/2019 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal' ]. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.56,88,700/- under the following heads:

¶42

*Sl.* *No.*	*Compensation Heads*	*Compensation* *Amount*
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs.55,72,400/-
2	Towards loss of Consortium to the petitioners No.1 & 2.	Rs. 80,000/-
3	Towards loss to estate	Rs. 18,150/-
4	Towards transportation of dead body funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.	Rs. 18,150/-
	*Total*	*Rs.56,88,700/-*

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

2. It is undisputed that on 09.02.2019

¶46

Sri.Siddalingappa has come under the wheels of a water tanker insured with the Insurer when he was bystander. Sri Siddalingappa's parents have filed the claim petition seeking compensation arraying Sri.Siddalingappa's wife as a respondent. The Insurer has filed its Statement of Objections denying the liability contending that the driver of the tanker did not possess a valid driving license. The Insurer has also raised certain other defences, but for the present purposes, the crucial defence is that the driver of the tanker did not possess a valid driving license.

¶47

The Tribunal, while answering the question of liability, has opined that the Insurer does not deny having issued a policy and that a photocopy of the driving licence of the driver is produced and this establishes that the driver had a valid driving license. The Tribunal, while answering the question on whether the parents were dependent on the

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

deceased, has opined that while the deceased's parents have established dependency, the wife [ the fifth respondent ] has not established her dependency because she has remained ex-parte . On the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has relied upon the statement of accounts issued by the deceased's employer in taking monthly income in a sum of Rs.41,125/- and capitalizing the same subject to deduction of 1/3^rd towards the personal expenses applying the multiplier of 14 adding 25% of the income towards future prospects. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 14 because the deceased was 45 years.

¶51

Sri Pradeep B., the learned counsel for the

¶52

Insurer, submits that this Court must interfere with the Tribunal's finding on the question of liability and the quantum because the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.41,125/- per month and deducting 1/3^rd towards personal

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

expenses. The learned counsel also submits that this Court will have to examine whether the Tribunal was justified in granting compensation only to the parents excluding the fifth respondent. Sri Sandesh T.B., the learned counsel for the parents [ the first and second respondents ], and Sri Manjunatha H.S., the learned counsel for the owner [ the fourth respondent ], are heard in the light of these circumstances and the grounds urged.

¶56

This Court must opine that

¶57

Sri.Siddalingappa, who has come under the wheels of the tanker insured by the Insurer when he was standing on the roadside, will be a third party and in that event even if the Insurer could deny its liability, it will have to pay the dependents of the deceased and recover from the Insured [ Owner of the Tanker ]. Insofar as the question of photocopy of the driving licence being sufficient proof of the Tanker driver holding a valid license, this Court must opine that

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

unless the requirements for introducing secondary evidence are established that a photocopy will not suffice.

¶61

However, this Court need not examine this aspect in the present proceedings because as and when the Insurer enforces the award against the owner, it would be open to both the Owner and the Insurer to present their respective cases for due adjudication in the execution proceedings. As such, this Court opines that there is reason for interference on the first aspect while stipulating that the Insurer must pay just and reasonable compensation as is now determined to the dependents of Sri.Siddalingappa with liberty to recover from the Owner without prejudice to the respective case on the driver of the Tanker holding a valid driving licence.

¶62

The crucial document on the deceased's income will be Exhibit P13. It is a certificate issued

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

by M/s Bundal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. According to the statement, the deceased's last drawn salary is Rs.31,116/- and if this is the last drawn salary and it is higher compared to most of the earlier months, it should be taken as the income of the deceased. The Tribunal therefore could not have taken a higher sum of Rs.41,125/- as the monthly income for the computation of Loss of Dependency . It is undisputed that if Rs.31,116/- is taken as the monthly income, there will be no deduction towards the Income Tax and the only deduction should be towards Professional Tax at Rs.2,400/-. As such, for the purposes of computation of monthly annual income of the deceased, the amount must be Rs.3,70,992/[ Rs.31,116 x 12 - Rs.2400/ -].

¶66

It is argued on behalf of the Insurer that the deduction towards personal expenses must be 1/2 and not 1/3 but this Court must opine that with the deceased leaving behind a wife and two parents,

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

there will be three dependants in which event it is settled that the deduction must be 1/3. If it is undisputed that the deceased was married to the fifth respondent, she would be entitled to a share in the compensation, and this is further emphasized because this Court is allowing deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased at 1/3^rd and not ½ which would not be if only the parents were the dependents. The wife cannot be denied compensation only because she has remarried.

¶70

The other parameters must remain the same. The computation of Loss of Dependency with such parameters will be as follows:

¶71

Annual Income and Deduction towards Income Tax :

¶72

Annual Income with the monthly Income at Rs.31,116/-	Rs.3,73,392/-
Professional Tax	Rs. 2,400/-
Annual Income for the
purposes of Loss of Dependency	Rs.3,70,992/-

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

The Computation of Loss of Dependency will be :

¶77

Computation of Loss of Dep	endency
Annual Income for Loss of Dependency	Rs.3,70,992/-
Addition towards future Prospects at 30%	Rs.1,11,297/-
Annual Income with Future prospects	Rs.4,82,289/-
Deduction at 1/3^rdtowards personalexpenses	Rs.1,60,763/-
Annual Income after deduction towards personalexpenses	Rs.3,21,526/-
Loss of dependency with multiplierof '14'	Rs.45,01,364/-

¶78

Consequentially, the compensation towards Loss of Dependency will be reduced to a sum of Rs.45,01,364/- from Rs.55,72,400/-, but there must be addition as is granted by the Tribunal towards Loss of Consortium to both the parents and the wife and towards Conventional Heads. In the result, it must be declared that the deceased's parents and the wife together will be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation towards Loss of Consortium.

¶79

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

The question of apportionment of

¶82

compensation between the parents and the wife is considered in the light of the undisputed fact that the wife has remarried during the pendency of the present proceedings and she has not participated in the proceedings either before the Tribunal and in this appeal. This Court finds that in such circumstances it would be just and reasonable to award to both the parents and the wife [ the fifth respondent] the compensation in equal proportion. The computation showing the difference is as follows:

¶83

	By the Tribunal	By this Court
Loss of dependency	Rs.55,72,400/-	Rs.45,01,370/
Loss ofConsortium	Rs.80,000/-	Rs.1,20,000/-
Loss ofestate	Rs.18,150/-	Rs.18,150/-
Transportation of dead body funeral and obsequies	Rs.18,150/-	Rs.18,150/-
ceremony
expenses.
*Total*	*Rs.56,88,700/-*	*Rs.46,57,670/-*

¶84

Hence, the following:

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

ORDER

¶89

[A] The appeal is allowed-in-part. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 26.11.2024 in MVC No.4982/2019 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Cause Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru is modified awarding the compensation to a sum of Rs.46,57,670/- by directing the Insurer to pay such amount along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

¶90

[B] The Tribunal is directed to disburse the compensation so deposited equally amongst the parents and the wife [ the fifth respondent ]. For the purposes of disbursement, the Tribunal shall ensure that appropriate communication is delivered to the fifth respondent by

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:20795-DB MFA No. 492 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

issuance of notice and by communication through the jurisdictional Tahsildar.

¶95

[C] The Insurer shall deposit the amount as aforesaid within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶96

[D] If there is any surplus, the Tribunal shall return the same to the Insurer.

¶97

[E] The Insurer is reserved with the liberty to recover the compensation paid subject to the observations as aforesaid.

¶98

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶99

Sd/-

¶100

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶101

SA ct:sr

The Manager v. Smt. Anasuya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Smt. Anasuya

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Deepika

Smt. Hemalatha Vs Archana K v

S. Bharathi Vs Manjunath

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Sudha a

Kumari Aayushi Vs Nil

Sri. Puneeth a. S. Vs Sri. Sathish Rao