Nalina. S Vs Udaya Kumar

UDAYA KUMAR, S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SRI. NANJUNDESHWARA AGRO KENDRA, C/O KEMPA BORAIAH, HOUSING BOARD, BESIDE GANAPATHI TEMPLE, KUNIGAL, NATIVE PLACE KATTEPALYA, KOTTAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶29

THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO., LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, JAYADEVA COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, B.H. ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 05.09.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.838/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, TUMAKURU, SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:48018-DB MFA No. 6017 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶37

This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation, arising out of judgment and award dated 23.12.2022 in MVC No.838/2021 passed by the VII Additional District Judge & Member, MACT, Tumakuru, (‘the Tribunal’, for short).

¶38

Heard Sri.Shantharaj K., learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri. Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Vide order dated 05.09.2023, notice of this appeal to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶39

Sri. Shantharaj K., learned counsel is in appeal only with respect to compensation awarded under the head ‘Loss of dependency’, taking the income of the deceased for the month of March 2021, i.e., Rs.33,774/-. As per Ex.P.12, the salary for the month of February 2021 is shown at Rs.37,681/- without adding NDA ( Night Duty Allowances) and NHA (National Holiday Allowance). Sri.Shantharaj K., further argued that out of the gross salary of Rs.37,681/-,

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48018-DB MFA No. 6017 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

only permissible deduction, i.e., professional tax and income tax are required be deducted. In the case on hand, if the total income is taken into consideration, as per the salary certificate for the month of February 2021 at Rs.37,681/-, a sum of Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax and a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards income tax is required to be deducted, out of annual income. That comes to Rs.37,681/- x 12 = 4,52,172/- (-) 10,400/- = Rs.4,41,772/-. This amount would be the loss of dependency annually. Since, the appellant was within the age of 40 years, taking into consideration that he was on payroll of Central Government 50% is required to be added to future prospects, which comes to Rs.6,62,658/- of 1/4^th is deducted towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.69,57,909/-.

¶43

Though Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, refuted the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and supported the award passed by the Tribunal, but he is not in serious dispute with the income for the month February 2021.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48018-DB MFA No. 6017 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

It is germane to mention here that the gross

¶47

salary for the month of March 2021 is shown as Rs.33,774/-, the reason being the deceased was on leave/absented for four days in the said month, as per the submission of learned counsel for the appellants.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that Sri.Shantharaj K, is right in his submission that the Tribunal has erred in not considering income of deceased as per pay slip for the month February 2021. The reason being in the said month, there is hike in the basic pay. As per the pay slip the income for the month of February 2021, is at Rs.37,681/-. Annually the income comes to Rs.4,52,172/-. The admissible deductions towards professional tax as well

¶49

as income tax comes to Rs.2,400 + Rs.8,000, totally Rs.10,400/-. After deducting the amount from the annual income supra , the net annual income comes to Rs.4,41,772/-. Considering the age of deceased 37 years as on the date of death, *50% required to be added towards the income stated supra and the appropriate multiplier would be

¶50

* Retyped and Replaced vide Court Order dated 19.12.2025.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:48018-DB MFA No. 6017 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

‘ 15 ’. After deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses, the

¶55

loss of dependency works out to *Rs.74,54,910/-. To that extent, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires modification. Other conventional heads are awarded in terms of settled position of law along with 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads.

¶56

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others¹ , the claimants being wife and children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘Loss Of Consortium’ is Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 5).

¶57

Medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal

¶58

remained unaltered.

¶59

On re-determination, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:

¶60

1 2018 ACJ 2782

¶61

Retyped and Replaced vide Court Order dated 19.12.2025.

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48018-DB MFA No. 6017 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

In summary, the total compensation re-

¶65

determined by this Court under heads is as follows:

¶66

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount Rs.
1.	Funeral expenses and transportation	16,500/-
2.	Loss ofestate	16,500/-
3.	Loss of consortium (40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000 +10% escalation)	2,20,000/-
4.	Loss of dependency	*74,54,910
5.	Medicalexpenses	2,25,245/-
	TOTAL	*_79,33,155/-_

¶67

On re-determination, in all the claimants are entitled for a sum of * Rs.79,33,155 /- as against Rs. 68,61,531 /-. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation works out to be * Rs.10,71,624 /- rounded off to * Rs.10,71,624/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶68

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we

¶69

proceed to pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶72

* Retyped and Replaced vide Court Order dated 19.12.2025.

¶73

8 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:48018-DB MFA No. 6017 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

ii) The judgment and award dated 23.12.2022 in MVC No.838/2021 passed by the VII Additional District Judge & Member, MACT, Tumakuru, is modified and compensation is enhanced to a sum of ***** Rs.10,71,624/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization;

¶77

iii) The enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest supra shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal;

¶78

iv) Upon deposit, entire amount be released as per the apportionment ordered by the Tribunal on proper identification.

¶79

v) No order as to costs.

¶80

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶81

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶82

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

¶83

* Retyped and Replaced vide Court Order dated 19.12.2025.

Nalina. S v. Udaya Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

Nalina. S v. Udaya Kumar

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

Sri Hanumanth K Bhajantri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nataraju N L Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Smt.Sandhya V.K.

The Depo Manager Vs Megha K R

Smt Gowramma Vs Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Sri Vijaya Muni B Vs the State of Karnataka