Meena Devi Vs the Manager

ANJU KUMAR SHARMA, Digitally signed S/O PARAMANAND SHARMA, by GAVRIBIDANUR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH 5. ANURADHA KUMARI, Location: HIGH D/O PARAMANAND SHARMA, COURT OF AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, KARNATAKA

¶11

ANURADHA KUMARI, D/O PARAMANAND SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT BARHULIA TOLA, BARHULIA SIWAN, BIHAR - 841 245.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12221 MFA No. 868 of 2024

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HEIGHTS BUILDING, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 01. (THE INSURER OF THE BOLERO, PICKUP BEARING NO. KA-51-AB-5756)

¶18

NARAYANAN B, S/O BYRAPPAN, MAJOR, NO. 16TH CROSS, ATTIBELE VILLAGE AND POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 107. (THE OWNER OF THE BOLERO, PICKUP BEARING NO. KA-51-AB-5756)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY M.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/ S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.3219/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE AND MEMBER, PRL MACT, BENGALURU, SCCH-1, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12221 MFA No. 868 of 2024

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal'). This appeal is premised on the ground of inadequate compensation, consequently, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

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

¶28

It is the case of appellants that on 08.06.2022 at about 8.45 p.m. deceased Shri Paramanand Sharma was riding his bicycle on NH 7 Hosur-Bengaluru Road and when he reached near Yadavanahalli Bus Stop, at that time, driver of Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51-AB-5756 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle of Shri Paramanand Sharma from behind. Due to the severe impact of the accident, Parmananda Sharma fell down sustained several

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:12221 MFA No. 868 of 2024

¶31

injuries and succumbed to said injuries on the spot. Consequent to which, a crime was registered in Crime No. 215/2022 in Attibele Police Station. The appellants being the dependants/legal representatives of deceased Paramananda Sharma filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents-owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company.

¶32

Despite service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and was placed exparte, whereas, the Insurance Company filed statement of objections, denied the claim and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶33

On the basis of materials placed on record both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.23,00,500/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., fixing liability jointly and severally against the respondents No.1 and 2 and directed respondent No.1Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within three months.

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:12221 MFA No. 868 of 2024

¶36

It is the vehement contention of learned

¶37

counsel for the appellants that the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side, the same requires to be enhanced in accordance to the Notional Income Chart prescribed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and compensation awarded under all other heads are not in serious challenge by the appellants. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently, enhance the compensation.

¶38

Per contra , learned counsel for the Insurance Company sustains the impugned order and contends that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and there is no requirement for interference or enhancement of the compensation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

¶40

"Whether income assessed by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced in accordance with the

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:12221 MFA No. 868 of 2024

¶43

Notional Income Chart and consequently, the total compensation?"

¶44

This Court need not delve into the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle, death having occurred due to the road traffic accident as the same is proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P14. The same is not questioned or challenged by the Insurance Company. In view of the appellants being satisfied with all other heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only point for consideration is the income which, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that it requires to be enhanced to Rs.15,500/- per month as against Rs.13,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Therefore, taking the income at Rs.15,500/- per month, the loss of dependency would be as follows:-

¶45

Rs.15,500/- + 25% = Rs.19,375/- and by deducting 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, it would be Rs.14,531/-. Taking the multiplier at '14' and multiplying

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12221 MFA No. 868 of 2024

¶47

the same into 12, the compensation would be

¶48

Rs.24,41,208/- as against Rs.20,47,500/-.

¶49

The compensation awarded under other heads,

¶50

namely, loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- , loss of funeral expenses Rs. 16,500 /-, consortium to claimant No.1 - Rs. 44,000 /-. Towards parental consortium, to reasonably compensate the claimants No.2 to 5, Rs.1,76,000 is retained.

¶51

In view of the above discussions, the

¶52

appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.26,94,208/- as against

¶53

Rs.23,00,500/- awarded by the Tribunal as mentioned in the table below:

¶54

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of Dependency	24,41,208-00
Loss of Estate	16,500-00
Funeral Expenses	16,500-00
Loss of consortium to claimant No.1	44,000-00
Parental consortium to claimant Nos.2 to 5 @ Rs.44,000/-each	1,76,000-00
TOTAL	26,94,208-00

¶55

Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:12221 MFA No. 868 of 2024

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) This appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶60

(ii) The judgment and award dated 16.08.2023 passed M.V.C.No.3219/2022 by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru, is modified.

¶61

(iii) The appellants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 26,94,208/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.,

¶62

(iv) The balance compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶63

(v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal stands intact and is retained.

¶64

(vi) Ordered accordingly

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶67

PSJ

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK

Meena Devi v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devi v. the Manager

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

M.S.Shashidhar Vs Smt.Sowmya

Sri D B Umashankar Vs Smt H S Nagarathna @ Ramya

Mr. Jason S Chella Vs Mrs. Lydia Nancy Prabha

Muzammil Pasha Vs Abida Banu @ Bibi Ayesha

Sri J Harinath Rao Vs Smt Swetha K

Anand K S Vs State of Karnataka