Shakira Banu Vs Sudeep H D

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.19.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.1865/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. BARRED BY TIME.

¶44

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

¶45

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40399-DB MFA No. 6832 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

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

¶50

The claimants in M.V.C. No.1865/2021 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan [for short, ' the Tribunal '] are in appeal. The first claimant is the wife of the deceased Mr. Akthar Hussain, and the other claimants are their children. The claimants and the others, for reasons of convenience, are referred to as the Claimants , the Insured and the Insurer . The Tribunal has granted compensation in a total sum of Rs.10,78,072/-

¶51

computed thus;

¶52

*Sl.* *Nos*	*Head*	*Amount*
A	Monthly Income	Rs.14,000-00
B	Future Prospects	-----
C	1/3 deduction towards personal expenses	Rs.4,666-00
D	Total dependency (A-C)	Rs.14,000- 4,666=Rs.9,334/-
E	_Age multiplier _	9
F	Compensation (Dx12xE) (Rs.9,334/- x 12 x9)	Rs.10,08,072-00

¶53

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40399-DB MFA No. 6832 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

G	*Conventional Heads*
H	A) Loss of Consortium	Rs.40,000-00
I	B) Loss of estate	Rs.15,000-00
J	C) Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000-00
	*Total*	*Rs.10,78,072-00*

¶56

Ms. Kavitha H.C, the learned counsel for

¶57

the appellants, and Mr. B. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the Insurer, submit that there is no dispute about [a] the claimants' relationship with the deceased, [b] his demise in the road accident on 13.09.2021, [c] the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-KK-2396 [ the offending vehicle ] and [d] the Insurer’s liability to pay just and reasonable compensation. In fact, Ms. Kavitha H.C. submits that this Court must grant enhancement in compensation towards loss of consortium and the loss of dependency.

¶58

Ms. Kavita H.C, while not disputing that the claimants have not placed on record any evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/per month, submits that in the case of claim petitions

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40399-DB MFA No. 6832 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

arising out of accidents in the year 2021, the notional income is taken at Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken notional income at Rs.14,000/per month. The learned counsel further contends that the deceased was aged 56 years, and therefore, the addition towards loss of future prospects must be at 10% of the notional income.

¶62

Mr. B. Pradeep does not controvert any of these submissions, and he emphasizes that if the loss of dependency is recomputed taking the monthly income at Rs.15,000/- and with addition of 10% thereof towards future prospects, this Court must retain the deduction towards the deceased’s personal expenses at 1/3^rd and the multiplier at '9'. These must indeed be so, and the loss of dependency when computed with these parameters but subject to change on the notional income and addition towards future prospects, the claimants will be entitled for

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40399-DB MFA No. 6832 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Rs.11,88,000/- towards loss of dependency as

¶66

against Rs.10,78,072/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶67

Details for Computation of Loss of Dependency		Amount [in Rs.]
MonthlyIncome		15,000
Addition towards Future Prospects	10%	1,500
Monthly Income + Future Prospects		16,500
Annual Income	12	1,98,000
Deduction towards personal expenses	1/3	66,000
Multiplicand [after deduction towards personal Expenses]		1,32,000
Multiplier	9
Loss of Dependency		11,88,000/-

¶68

This Court must observe that it is settled

¶69

that those who have lost their dear ones in a road accident independent of the question of dependency would be entitled to loss of consortium individually at Rs.40,000/- subject to enhancement at the rate of 10% for every three years from the year 2017. The claimants are four in number and the accident is in the year 2021 and as such, they would be entitled to

¶70

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40399-DB MFA No. 6832 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Rs.1,76,000 /- as against a sum of Rs.40,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants would thus

¶73

be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,79,000/- as against Rs.10,78,072/- which is brought out by the following comparative table.

¶74

*Compensation* *Heads*	*By the Tribunal* *[in Rs.]*	*By this Court* *[in Rs.]*
Towards loss of dependency	10,08,072	11,88,000
Towards loss of consortium	40,000	*1,76,000* [1,60,000 +
Towards loss of estate	15,000	10%]
Towards funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses	15,000	15,000
*Total*	10,78,072	*13,79,000*
*Enhanced Com*	*pensation*	*3,00,928*

¶75

In the light of the afore, the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

[a] The appeal is allowed in part modifying the Tribunal's impugned judgment and award dated 19.06.2024 in M.V.C.No.1865/2021

¶78

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40399-DB MFA No. 6832 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

granting to the claimants a total compensation of Rs. 13,79,000 /- with an enhancement in a sum of Rs. 3,00,928 /- at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

¶81

[b] The respondent - Insurer is called upon to deposit Rs. 3,00,928 /- with interest as aforesaid within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

¶82

Sd /- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶83

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶84

RB

¶85

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40399-DB MFA No. 6832 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

27.10.2025

¶88

ORAL ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'

¶89

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

¶90

This appeal is listed today as this Court wanted clarification on the deduction that must be made towards the personal expenses of the deceased. There are four claimants, and the Tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses.

¶91

Ms. Kavitha H. C, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that when there are four and more dependents not exceeding six, deduction towards personal expenses must be 1/4^th and that the Tribunal is not justified in deducting 1/3^rd . However, Mr. B. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that the undisputed facts are that the claimants are the wife and daughters of the deceased and that the daughters are married and residing separately. If the daughters are married and are residing separately, their dependency on the

¶92