Smt. Soubhagya Vs Universal Sompo Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD., OFFICE AT NO. 217/A, 3^RD FLOOR, KVV SAMART, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, OUTER RING ROAD, KASTURINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 043, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶17

SADBHVA ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NO.29, KALEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, SATHNOOR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST. - 562 117.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2025, R2 IS DISPENSED)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4172/2020 BY XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BENGALURU.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

¶28

the judgment and award dated 17.06.2023 passed in MVC.No.4172/2020 by the Court of XIII Additional Small Causes and ACMM and Additional MACT, Benglauru (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶29

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶31

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶32

On 23.10.2020 at about 7.30 p.m., one Suresh along

¶33

with one Nandish was standing by the side of the Kanakapura-Malavalli footpath road. At that time, one water tanker bearing registration No.MP-22-G-2670 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against these

¶34

two persons who were standing by the side of the footpath. Due to the impact of the accident, both the persons suffered injuries and unfortunately, Suresh succumbed to injuries while being shifted to the hospital. Hence, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶35

3.1 On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not contest the matter and was placed ex parte . Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle and also that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶38

date of occurrence of the accident, consequently sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶39

3.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,08,792/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and also held respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and respondent No.2 being the insurer was directed to deposit the amount within sixty days.

¶40

3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation

¶41

amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶42

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that deceased Suresh was working as a Carpenter and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He was the sole bread winner of the family. Learned counsel relies on Ex.P-20 to show the licence

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶44

having been issued for running the carpentry shop by the Acchhalu Village Panchayath Secretary along with two receipts that are also enclosed for having taken up the work based on this document.

¶45

4.1 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal having taken the notional income is erroneous; the deceased cannot be equated to a coolie or a daily wager, as he was a Carpenter running a shop under a skilled worker. Therefore, reasonable amount ought to have been taken for consideration, if not the amount claimed by the claimants. Learned counsel also contends that the tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation under other heads also. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶46

Per Contra , Sri D.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company contends that apart from the production of Ex.P-20, no other material is placed on record to establish the employment, work done and the income generated by the deceased as

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶48

on the date of occurrence of the accident. It is also contended by him that Ex.P-20 is a licence issued by Panchayath, the authenticity was disputed, so also the licence was valid only till 2016. The accident having occurred in the year 2020, this document may not be much value as no material is placed to show that what was the avocation and work done by the deceased as on the year 2020. Therefore, he contends that the tribunal having considered these aspects, has taken the notional income at ₹14,500/-, which does not call for interference. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of this appeal.

¶49

I have heard the learned counsel for appellantsclaimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, perused the judgment and award and Ex.P-20, which is placed before this Court by the learned counsel for appellants-claimants. On the basis of Ex.P-20, apparently, it is seen that the deceased Suresh was working as a Carpenter; he had obtained a licence from the jurisdictional Panchayath to run the shop. The

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶51

documents are annexed along with Ex.P-20, those are the receipts for the work done as a Carpenter. Though this particular documents do not show the income generated or drawn by the deceased as a Carpenter, the fact remains that he was a skilled worker and he cannot be equated to a Coolie or a Daily Wager to provide only notional income.

¶52

It is needless to mention that the notional income

¶53

chart is formulated for the purpose of those individuals who do not have any documentary proof of income who are either Coolies or Daily Wagers; this cannot be applied to the skilled workers. Apparently, in the present case on hand, the deceased Suresh was working as a Carpenter as per Ex.P-20. Though the licence may have expired as on 2016 itself, it cannot be assumed that he has not continued to do his work as a skilled Carpenter or anything better than that; prudence would demand that any person who was a Carpenter in the year 2016 and had his own shop would not have kept quiet without doing anything further in life and hence, cannot be relegated to notional

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶55

income. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the income is to be taken as a skilled worker at Rs.17,000/- per month rather than Rs.14,500/-. All other details with regard to the multiplier, age, future prospects and the deductions towards personal and living expenses awarded by the tribunal are retained and the same do not call for interference. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.26,77,584/- (Rs.17,000/- + 25% = Rs.21,250/- - 1/4^th = Rs.15,938/- x 12 x 14) as against Rs.22,83,792/-.

¶56

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection and the same requires to be modified. As there are four dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- per head as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 . Therefore, under the head loss of consortium, the claimants are

¶57

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶58

entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 4) along with 10% escalation towards one block period, which would

¶59

be Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%).

¶60

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all Rs.30,000/-, to which an escalation of Rs.3,000/- is added. Therefore, the amount of expenses for the transportation of the dead body awarded at Rs.5,000/- is adjusted to the escalation already granted by this Court towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs.33,000/- under this head.

¶61

In view of the above, the claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.28,86,584/- as

¶62

against Rs.24,08,792/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶63

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	26,77,584-00
Loss of consortium	1,76,000-00
Loss of estate and funeral expenses	33,000-00
TOTAL	28,86,584-00

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12882 MFA No. 8192 of 2023

¶65

11. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶68

ii) The judgment and award dated 17.06.2023 passed in MVC.No.4172/2020 by the Court of XIII Additional Small Causes and ACMM and Additional MACT, Benglauru, is modified;

¶69

iii) The claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.28,86,584/- as against Rs.24,08,792/along with interest @ 6% p.a.;

¶70

iv) The balance compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶71

v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal are undisturbed and retained;

¶72

vi) Ordered accordingly.

¶73

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶74

CPN CT: BHK

Smt. Soubhagya v. Universal Sompo Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Soubhagya v. Universal Sompo Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.

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 Chandrashekara M a Vs Smt Thayamma

Sri. Ramesh. R Vs M/S Bhagyalakshmi Traders

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Sri. V.K. Prakashan

Thimmegowda v Vs Jaya Kumara H M

B.M. Sunil Vs R. Sandeep

Sri Munikrishnappa Vs Sri Nanjappa