Savitha Vs Shrikantha @ Dejappa

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.06.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.209/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

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

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

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

¶45

The claimants in M.V.C.No.209/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, Udupi [for short, ' the Tribunal '] are in appeal, and they seek enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded to the claimants a total sum of Rs.28,40,760/- along with interest at 7% per annum. The Tribunal has awarded this amount under the following heads with the

¶46

corresponding apportionment.

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:47290-DB MFA No. 6071 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

1	Loss of Estate	Rs.16,500/-
2	Transportation and funeralexpenses	Rs.16,500/-
3	Loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium	Rs.1,76,000/-
4	Loss of Dependency	Rs.26,01,900/-
5	Medical expenses of deceased prior to his death	Rs.29,862/-
	Total	Rs.28,40,762/-
	Rounded of to	Rs.28,40,760/-

¶51

The learned counsels for the parties are categorical that there is no dispute that the claimants are the wife, child and parents of the deceased Mr. Harish Poojary who has died in a road accident on 26.08.2021 when he was on the pillion of a twowheeler and that the accident was because of the involvement of another two-wheeler. The learned counsels also do not dispute that the accident as found by the Tribunal was because the rider of the other two-wheeler was negligent.

¶52

The only question presented for consideration is whether there must be an

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47290-DB MFA No. 6071 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

enhancement in the compensation towards loss of dependency with the learned counsel for the appellants contending that the Tribunal has taken notional income at Rs.14,750/- per month when according to the schedule evolved for settlement in cases arising out of accidents in the year 2021, the notional income must be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶56

The claimants have not established the vocation of the deceased though they have contended that he was working as a bar-tender. Therefore, the loss of dependency must be computed based on the notional income, and if the notional income in the cases arising out of accidents in the year 2021 is taken at Rs.15,000/- per month, that should not be taken in the present case as well. When such notional income is taken, there would be a marginal enhancement in a sum of Rs.44,100/, which is computed thus.

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47290-DB MFA No. 6071 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Details for Computation of Loss of Dependency

¶60

MonthlyIncome		15,000
Addition towards Future Prospects	40%	6,000
Monthly Income + Future Prospects		21,000
Annual Income		2,52,000
Deduction Towards personal expenses	1/4	63,000
Multiplicand [After Deduction towards personal Expenses]		1,89,000
Multiplier	14
Loss of Dependency		26,46,000

¶61

This amount of Rs.26,46,000/- will be as against Rs.26,01,900/- awarded by the Tribunal, and in the circumstances, the claimants are allowed a global sum of Rs.50,000/- as enhancement in the compensation. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

[a] The appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and Award dated 06.03.2023 in M.V.C.No.209/2022 on the file of

¶64

the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, Udupi is modified granting

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:47290-DB MFA No. 6071 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

to the claimants a further

¶69

compensation in a global sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶70

[b] The second respondent - Insurer shall deposit the global sum of Rs.50,000/with the Tribunal within eight [8] weeks from today. If there is any failure, the second respondent shall pay the interest on the aforesaid amount at 6% per annum for the delayed period.

¶71

[c] The claimants shall be entitled to this global sum equally.

¶72

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶73

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶74

RB

Savitha v. Shrikantha @ Dejappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitha v. Shrikantha @ Dejappa

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

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.

Nalina. S Vs Udaya Kumar