Jyothi Vs Sudarshan

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.572/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION

¶36

AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND

¶39

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶40

3 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:45675-DB MFA No. 6837 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

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

¶45

This appeal is by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation arising out of the judgment and award dated 15.03.2024 in MVC No.572/2022 passed by V Additional District & Session Judge, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

¶46

The date of accident, the involvement of vehicle and the death of Ramesh S/o Late Rangegowda, as well as the liability to pay compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute pertains to non-consideration of income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority for the corresponding year of the accident.

¶47

Heard Smt. Kavitha H.C., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Vide order dated 19.03.2025, notice of this appeal to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶48

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45675-DB MFA No. 6837 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Smt. Kavitha H.C., submits that the Tribunal

¶51

committed an error in taking the income as per the minimum wages, at Rs.11,473/-. Admittedly, the date of the accident was 07.11.2021 and as per the income fixed under the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority for settlement of claims before the Lok Adalat corresponding to the year of the accident i.e., 2021 is at Rs.15,000/-.

¶52

She further submits that the Tribunal, however, in other respects, has rightly considered the addition towards future prospects and applied the appropriate multiplier as well as awarded compensation under other conventional heads. She also submits that the claimants are entitled to 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. With these submissions, sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶53

Though Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel for

¶54

respondent No.2 argued in support of the award passed by

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45675-DB MFA No. 6837 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the Tribunal, but he is not seriously in dispute with the income fixed as per the chart corresponding to the year 2021, at Rs.15,000/-

¶58

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal the record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the income at Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.11,473/- per month. The deceased was aged 45 years as on the date of the accident. As he was below 50 years of age, 25% to be added to the existing income towards ‘Future Prospects’. The appropriate multiplier applicable having regard to the age of the deceased is ‘14’. In terms of the settled position of law, the claimants are also entitled to 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads.

¶59

In view of the higher income and the entitlement to 10% escalation on the conventional heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required revisited as under:

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45675-DB MFA No. 6837 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of Dependency (15,000+25%x12x14x3/4)	23,62,500/-
2.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-
4.	Loss of consortium (40,000x4)	1,60,000/-
5.	10% Escalation (1,90,000x10%)	19,000/-
	TOTAL	25,71,500/-

¶63

On re-determination, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,71,500/- as against Rs.19,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,01,500/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Resultantly, we pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. The appeal is allowed in-part .

¶66

ii. The judgment and award dated 15.03.2024 in MVC No.572/2022 passed by the V Additional District & Session Judge, Hassan is modified and enhanced to Rs.6,01,500/-, which shall carry

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:45675-DB MFA No. 6837 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the

¶71

date of the petition till realisation.

¶72

iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation along with the accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶73

iv. On such deposit, the entire compensation shall be released in favour of the claimants as per the apportionment order by the Tribunal.

¶74

v. No order as to costs.

¶75

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶76

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶77

TMP

¶78

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Jyothi v. Sudarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothi v. Sudarshan

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 Gorakanth Chanshetty Vs the Principal Secretary

M/S the Hamlet, Vs the Income Tax Officer Ward - 6(2)(4)

Sri Krishna Kumar Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Smt Lathadevi T C Vs State of Karnataka

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Rathnakara Narayana

Sri Jagadeesha G R., Vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests