Sri R Hanumantha Vs Sri J Sridhar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri R Hanumantha Vs Sri J Sridhar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; the tribunal's judgment and award dated 19.10.2022 in MVC.No.3894/2018 modified; compensation enhanced from Rs.21,71,300/- to Rs.30,22,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a.; respondent-Insurance Company to pay the balance within four weeks; entire compensation to be released to the appellants-claimants by electronic transfer as per the tribunal's terms upon furnishing bank details/proper identification; tribunal's terms on apportionment and deposit to stand intact; Registry directed to transmit original records to the jurisdictional tribunal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement. +2 more

Court's answer

Occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and death due to the road traffic accident are proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P28; the claimants' relationship to the deceased (claimant No.1 husband, Nos.2-4 children, No.5 mother-in-law) is not disputed.

Ratio / Principle

The deceased was aged 34 years; the multiplier of '16' adopted by the tribunal is the appropriate multiplier and does not call for interference.

Key takeaways

The tribunal's award of 40% towards future prospects, the deceased being aged less than 40 years, is retained.ratio¶58
The tribunal's 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses calls for interference; as there are four dependants, 1/4th is deducted instead.ratio¶58
With no cogent material on income from the provision store, and the deceased having earlier earned roughly Rs.16,000/- and odd per month in Agri Gold Farms India Pvt. Ltd. before leaving that job to run the store, the Court undertakes a guesswork based on her previous and subsisting avocation: she cannot be presumed to have earned Rs.16,000/- per month, nor can she be equated with a coolie or daily wager; monthly income is fixed at Rs.14,000/- in place of the tribunal's notional Rs.11,000/- (Legal Services Authority chart).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Enhancement of motor-accident death compensation under S.173(1) MV Act — MFA No.886/2023 (MV-D), High Court of Karnataka, decided 19.03.2025 by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur. Kavitha (about 34), pillion on motorcycle KA-05-HJ-3883 ridden by her son, died on 01.06.2017 after falling at a newly laid, unmarked road hump near Vajarahalli Village, Bengaluru; the tribunal (XXII Additional SCJ/ACMM, Member-MACT, MVC No.3894/2018) awarded Rs.21,71,300/- with 6% interest. Absent any documentary proof of income from the provision store she ran (she had earlier earned roughly Rs.16,000/- p.m. in Agri Gold Farms India Pvt. Ltd. before leaving the job), the Court did a guesswork and fixed monthly income at Rs.14,000/- against the tribunal's notional Rs.11,000/- (LSA chart), holding she could neither be presumed to earn Rs.16,000/- nor be equated with a coolie; multiplier 16 (age 34) and 40% future prospects were retained; the personal-and-living-expenses deduction was reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th as there are four dependants; loss of dependency was recomputed at Rs.28,22,400/-; consortium (Rs.1,60,000/-), funeral and transportation (Rs.20,000/-) and loss of estate (Rs.20,000/-) were retained with no escalation. Total compensation enhanced to Rs.30,22,400/- with 6% p.a. interest; appeal allowed in part; insurer to pay the balance within four weeks by the tribunal's terms.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.886 OF 2023 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

SRI R.HANUMANTHA S/O.LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

SRI H.RUPESH S/O.SRI R.HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

SRI H.HARSHA S/O.SRI R.HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

KUM.NANDINI D/O.SRI R.HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.33, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS PARAMOUNT GARDEN THALAGHATTAPURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 062

(BY SRI T.V.NANJE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

…APPELLANTS

SRI J.SRIDHAR S/O.JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT THATAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560 062

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING 9^TH FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O. DATED 10.07.2024)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.3894/2018 BY THE C/C XXII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

the judgment and award dated 19.10.2022 passed in MVC.No.3894/2018 by the C/c XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member-MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the

tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 01.06.2017 at about 8.45 p.m., one Kavitha,

aged about 34 years, was travelling along with the rider, her son namely, H.Rupesh on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HJ-3883 as a pillion rider, after closing the provision store at Mallasandra and returning home at Thalaghattapura. They reached near Sriram Simphoni Apartment of Vajarahalli Village and there was a newly laid road hump without white topping/marking or any signal board. The rider of the motorcycle was familiar with the road and he was travelling in a normal speed but due to the road humps and the darkness of the night, the said Kavitha, the pillion rider fell down and sustained severe head injury. She was immediately shifted to KIMS Hospital, but unfortunately, the Doctor declared her as brought dead.

3.1 Due to the unfortunate death of the said Kavitha

in the road traffic accident, the claimants who are none other than the husband, children and mother-in-law of the

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

3.2 Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle

did not appear and he was placed ex parte . Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying

the claim of the claimants and stated that the rider of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective Driving Licence as on date of occurrence of accident.

3.3 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.21,71,300/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and fixed joint liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation within sixty days.

3.4 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the compensation

awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. The tribunal has failed to take into consideration the proper income for awarding just and reasonable compensation, so also, it is contended that the deductions made towards personal and living expenses at 1/3^rd is erroneous, arbitrary and the same requires to be modified as there are four dependants. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance

Company contends that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is just and reasonable. He sustains the same on the ground that admittedly, there is no proof of income produced by the claimant before the tribunal or before this Court. Though certain Income Tax Returns are filed, it is much prior to the date of occurrence of accident.

Even according to the case of the claimants, the deceased had left the job and she was running a provision store

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

business. Even in the records that are produced before the tribunal, no documentary evidence is placed to show as to what is the exact income that is earned from the provision store by the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident. Therefore, the tribunal is justified in doing a guesswork and awarding notional income of Rs.11,000/as per the Legal Services Authority chart, which is sustainable and the same does not need any enhancement. With regard to other aspect of compensation awarded towards personal and living expenses, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sustains the same as there is no ground made out to interfere. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and award, the occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle, death having occurred due to the Road Traffic

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

Accident are proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P28. The appellants-claimant No.1 being the husband, claimant Nos.2 to 4, being the children and claimant No.5 being mother-in-law of the deceased, is not disputed.

Now coming to the question of age, avocation, income, multiplier, deductions and consortium for awarding compensation, it is seen that the deceased was aged 34 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable is '16', which is correctly taken by the tribunal and the same does not call for interference. The tribunal has awarded 40% towards future prospects, in view of the deceased being aged less than 40 years and the same is retained. The tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses. However, the same calls for interference, as there are four dependants. Therefore, 1/4^th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.

With regard to income, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/-per month, which

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

may not be proper and hence, it calls for interference.

However, now the question is what is the income of the deceased to be taken?

Admittedly, no documents are placed before the Court as to what is the exact income that is earned by the deceased as on date of occurrence of accident. Though it was stated that while she was working in the Agri Gold Farms India Pvt. Ltd., she was earning roughly around Rs.16,000/- and odd per month, but the fact remains that she has left that job and started a provision store, however, nothing cogent material has been placed before the Court as to what is the exact income per month or per annum earned by the deceased from the provision store. Therefore, since no material was placed before the tribunal, the tribunal has relied upon the notional income chart. Therefore, I am in agreement with learned counsel

for claimants that the income requires to be partially enhanced, taking into consideration that the deceased was working in the Agri Gold Farms India Pvt. Ltd., and was

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

filing Income Tax Returns earning around 16,000/- and odd per month roughly and she would certainly be earning more than that, when she moved on to do the provision store business. But, due to lack of any material, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.16,000/- per month as on date of occurrence of accident. Nevertheless, it cannot also be said that the deceased could be equated with a coolie or a daily wager. Under the circumstances, this Court would have to do a guesswork on the basis of previous avocation prior to the death and the avocation as on date of the death and arrive at a nominal income commensurate to what she was earning earlier and as on date of occurrence of accident.

Considering all these aspects and the materials placed on record and the evidence adduced, this Court is of the opinion that the income could be taken at Rs.14,000/- per month rather than Rs.11,000/- taken by the tribunal. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.28,22,400/- (Rs.14,000/- +

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

40% = Rs.19,600/- - 1/4^th = Rs.14,700/- x 12 x 16) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.19,71,264/awarded by the tribunal.

The tribunal awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss

of consortium, as there are four dependents, which does

not call for interference and the same is retained.

The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses, so also, Rs.20,000/towards loss of estate, which does not call for interference

and the same are retained. However, this Court refrains from awarding any escalation amount, under this head as the same is adjusted towards the said heads, where the

excess compensation is already awarded by the tribunal.

In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.30,22,400/- as

against Rs.21,71,300/- as mentioned in the table below:

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	28,22,400-00
Loss of consortium	1,60,000-00

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

Funeral and transportation	20,000-00
expenses
Loss of estate	20,000-00
TOTAL	30,22,400-00

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

ii) The judgment and award dated 19.10.2022 passed in MVC.No.3894/2018 by the C/c XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, is modified;

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,22,400/- as against Rs.21,71,300/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.;

iv) The respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the balance compensation amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

v) The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants as per the terms of the tribunal by Electronic transfer to the

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495 MFA No. 886 of 2023

claimants upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification.

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal with regard to apportionment and deposit shall stand intact.

vii) Registry is directed to transmit the original records to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

LB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54