Smt Saroja Bai Vs Sri J C Mallikarjuna

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27-7-2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.572 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-III, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:32442-DB MFA No. 8272 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶38

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.07.2024 passed in MVC No.572/2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-III, Chitradurga (for short, 'Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.23,23,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶39

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶40

Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal is as under:-

¶41

On 13.02.2023 at about 7.00 p.m., one Mohanakumaranaik was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-14-EC4005 alongwith pillion rider near Balaji Poultry Farm, Mahadevapur Cross, Davanagere Taluk, and at that time, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-17-D-6615 drove the said bus in rash and

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32442-DB MFA No. 8272 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle, as a result of which, Mohanakumaranaik fell from the motor cycle and sustained head injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act before the Tribunal. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the mother and father and claimant No.3 is the brother of deceased Mohanakumaranaik.

¶45

Learned counsel Sri Mohammed Ali, appearing for the claimants contended that deceased Mohanakumaranaik was doing spice business and he was aged 24 years and earning Rs.30,000/p.m., but the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.15,500/- which is on the lower side. Further, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'. Thus, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶46

Per-contra, learned counsel Smt. Manjula N. Tejaswi for respondent Nos.2 and 3/Insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:32442-DB MFA No. 8272 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the Tribunal records, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal:-

¶51

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

¶52

In the instant case, the Insurance company has not disputed the accident, cause of death and liability to pay the compensation, however, the Insurance company has disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

Insofar as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,500 p.m., which is on lower side. The claimants have taken the contention that the deceased was doing spice business and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. To substantiate this contention, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence before this Court. The accident is of the year 2023. No documentary evidence is placed on record to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, taking note of the circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as well as High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru,

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32442-DB MFA No. 8272 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

we deem it appropriate to re-assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- p.m. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has not disputed this aspect. Hence, the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is '17'. The deceased, who was a bachelor had left behind his parents and younger brother and therefore, the proper deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 50%. The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others , reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 has rightly considered 40% towards future prospectus to the assessed income of the deceased. Thus, the 'loss of dependency' works out to Rs.22,84,800/-(Rs.16,000 +40%= Rs.22,400 -50% = Rs.11.200 x x12 x17).

¶57

The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding fair compensation under the conventional heads. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi's case, the claimant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium',

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32442-DB MFA No. 8272 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

¶61

expenses.

¶62

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following

¶63

compensation:-

¶64

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	22,84,800
Towardsloss ofconsortium	1,20,000
Towards loss of estate	15,000
Towardsfuneralexpenses	15,000
TOTAL	24,34,800
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	23,23,400/-
BALANCE	Rs.1,11,400/-

¶65

The claimants are entitled to a enhanced compensation of

¶66

Rs.24,34,800/- as against Rs.23,23,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶67

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed-inpart .

¶70

The judgment and award dated 27.07.2024 passed in MVC No.572/2023 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-III, Chitradurga is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶71

The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.24,34,800/- as against Rs.23,23,400/- awarded by the Tribunal with enhanced compensation of

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:32442-DB MFA No. 8272 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Rs.1,11,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶76

The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest at 6% p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

¶77