Smt Chondavva P E Vs Sri Murali v

SRI. MURALI V., IN ALL THE PETITIONS S/O.VENKATARAMANA, R/AT.NO.55/1, SITE NO.2, BEHIND MICI LAYOUT MAIN ROAD, G.B PALYA, HONGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 068. (OWNER OF LGV TEMPO BEARING NO KA-25-5616)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, J P AND DEVI CHEMBUKESHAVA ARCADE, NO.69, MILLER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 057, BY ITS MANAGER (INSURER OF LGV TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-25-5616)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 19.07.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.01.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.5248/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL

¶23

MACT AND CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation, arising out of judgment and award dated 16.01.2019 in MVC.No.5248/2017 passed by the Member, Principal M.A.C.T and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶30

Sri. A.S.Girish, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri.Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer are heard.

¶31

Sri. A.S.Girish, submits that the deceased was

¶32

working as a Gunman and was earning a fixed salary of Rs.12,616/- along with OT charges, which has been clearly reflected in the salary certificates produced at Ex-P26, from January-2017 till July-2017, i.e., till date of the death of the deceased. The OT charges paid for each month are

¶33

reflected in the said salary certificate (Ex.P26), which reads as under for easy reference:

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Year 2017	OT Charges Rs.
January	5,691/-
February	5,526/-
March	6,153/-
April	7,329/-
May	2,709/-
June	6,300/-
July	6,143/-
TOTAL	39,851/-

¶38

An average of the said OT charges would come to Rs.5,693/- and the same requires to be added to the monthly fixed wages and the income has to be reconsidered. Since, the deceased was within 40 years, 40% must be added towards future prospectus to the income stated supra . The claimants are further entitled for 10% escalation on the conventional heads. With this, he submits that the Tribunal has considered the income only with respect to fixed wages which is stated in the salary certificate, without considering the OT charges, which were continuously paid to the deceased for a period of seven months till his death.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sri.A.S. Girish, learned counsel submits that the

¶42

deceased was survived by a widowed mother as well as unmarried sister. However, she was married during the pendency of the petition. The Tribunal ought to have considered these aspects of the matter and ought to have

¶43

taken the income, which is the fixed wages as stated in Ex-P.26. He further asserts that the Tribunal has failed to consider the case for awarding compensation under the head ‘Filial Consortium’. With these, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶44

Refuting the submissions of Sri. A.S. Girish, Sri. Ravi S. Samprathi, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal after going through the entire record produced at Ex-P.26, has rightly considered the fixed wages paid to the deceased. The OT charges paid for the overtime service rendered by the deceased is not a fixed income, hence, the same may not be considered. Even the OT charges differ from month to month. In these circumstances, the average income, as contented by the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

claimant cannot be considered for awarding any compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. However, to the query of this Court, Sri. Ravi S.Samprathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is unable to dispel earnings of the deceased working overtime consistently till his death in all the seven months, though on a different OT hours.

¶48

Having considered the material placed on

¶49

record, the following point arises for consideration:

¶50

”Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper within the meaning ‘ just compensation .”

¶51

My answer to the above point is partly in affirmative for the following:

¶52

REASONS

¶53

A perusal of Ex-P.26 total 7 pay slips from

¶54

January 2017 to July 2017, the deceased has rendered OT service, however the hours of work were more or less. But

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the fact remains that he worked on OT basis till his death. It cannot be lost sight that the deceased was having widowed mother and unmarried sister. In absence of my contra evidence the deceased being the only son and breadwinner of the family, in the absence of father, it is the responsibility of the brother to take care of the sister till her marriage. At this stage Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi, learned counsel pointed out in the cross-examination that the sister has already been married which has been admitted by PW-1 mother.

¶58

In these circumstances, considering the fact that the deceased was survived by mother as well as unmarried sister, in the absence of father, the fact that the deceased was rendering service over the normal duty hours, cannot be lost sight, for the family financial stability.

¶59

In the peculiar facts of the case on hand though not on the average OT charges as contended by the learned counsel for appellants, but in view of continuous

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

OT services rendered, if the additional income from OT is considered at Rs.4,000/- for each month added to the fixed income of the deceased, it would come at Rs.16,616/-. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr¹ , considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be ‘17’ as the deceased was between age group of 26-30, 40% is to be added towards ‘Future prospectus’, as the deceased was within 40 years. As rightly ordered by the Tribunal, 50% is to be deducted towards ‘personal expenses’, as the deceased was a bachelor.

¶63

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI² , the claimants are also entitled for 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads for each completed 3 years from 2017. In the case on hand there are 2 terms of 3 years, which

¶64

1 2009 (6) SCC 121

¶65

2 2017 (16) SCC 680

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

would come to 20% on the amount awarded under the

¶69

conventional heads.

¶70

For the forgoing reasons, the compensation

¶71

awarded by the Tribunal requires re-assessment. Having considered the entire materials on record and facts stated

¶72

supra , this Court proceeds to re-determine the

¶73

compensation, which is as under:

¶74

Sl.	Particulars	Amount
No.		Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency (Rs.16,616 + 40% x 12 x 17 x 50%)	23,72,765-00
2.	Loss of estate	15,000-00
3.	Funeral expenses and transportation charges	15,000-00
4.	Filial consortium	80,000-00
5.	10% + 10% escalation for two completed years on conventional heads	22,000-00
	TOTAL	25,04,765-00

¶75

On re-determination, the claimants are entitled

¶76

for a sum of Rs.25,04,765/- as against Rs.18,45,244/awarded by the Tribunal. On re-determination the claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of

¶77

*Rs.6,59,521/- rounded off to Rs.6,60,000/- which shall

¶78

*Corrected and retyped vide chamber order dated 01.04.2026.

¶79

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶82

For the foregoing reasons, the points for

¶83

consideration are answered accordingly and this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i) Appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶86

ii) The judgment and award dated 16.01.2019, in MVC.No.5248/2017, passed by the Member, Principal M.A.C.T and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, is modified;

¶87

iii) The appellants–claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of * Rs.6,60,000/- along with along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶88

iv) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation along with the accrued interest supra within six weeks

¶89

*Corrected and retyped vide chamber order dated 01.04.2026.

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:46141 MFA No. 7191 of 2019

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal.

¶94

v) Upon deposit, 75% of the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest shall be released in favour of appellant No.1/claimant No.1 and the remaining 25% along with accrued interest shall be released in favour of appellant No.2/claimant No.2, on proper identification.

¶95

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶96

RR

¶97

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt Chondavva P E v. Sri Murali v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chondavva P E v. Sri Murali v

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

Mr Hariparasad Shetty Vs Mr Steni Jayakara Karkada

T. Puttaswamy Vs Divisional Manager

S D Veena Vs Smt Jnanamathi

Akbar Sab Vs the Managing Director

Mr Narayana Shetty Vs Mrs Nayana Holla

Sri. Ramesh Babu D Vs the Managing Director