Susheel Poojarthy Vs Raju K

APPELLANT NO.1 IS WIFE, 2 TO 5 ARE CHILDREN AND 6 IS THE MOTHER OF DECEASED NARASIMHA POOJARY, RESIDING AT UGRANI MANE, AMASEBAILU, HENGAVALLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 212.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35407 MFA No. 1417 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

RAJU K., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. KITTU, R/O. HYARAMBI, JENUGADDE POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-577101.

¶21

GREGORY LUWIS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. VALARIAN LUWIS, R/O.1-77 SASTHANA, PANDESHWARA VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK - 576 226.

¶22

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, FIRST FLOOR, PUSHPA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA - 576 201, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O. DATED 08.06.2026, NOITCE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPSENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.914/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, KUNDAPURA, ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND FASTENING THE LIABILITY ON THE RESPONDENT NO.2- INSURANCE COMPANY.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:35407 MFA No. 1417 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in the Judgment and Award dated 27.01.2024 passed in MVC No.914/2020 by Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapura.

¶33

Even though the matter is listed today for orders/admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer, the matter is taken up for disposal.

¶34

The appellants/claimants made a claim petition

¶35

seeking for award of compensation for the death of Narasimha Poojary (husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 to 5 and son of claimant No.6) in a road traffic accident which took place on 09.10.2019 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Mahindra Maximo Van bearing registration No.KA-20-P-8616.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35407 MFA No. 1417 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The Tribunal recorded the evidence adduced by

¶39

the parties and upon appreciating the evidence on record,

¶40

assessed the compensation and awarded the

¶41

compensation under various heads as under:

¶42

Sl.	Particulars		Amount
No.
1.	Towards loss of dependency (423.50 X 30 + 10% / 1/4^th= 13,976 X 12 X 9)	Rs.	11,32,056/-
2.	Loss of love and affection	Rs.	60,500/-
3.	Loss of consortium	Rs.	48,400/-
4.	Towards loss of estate	Rs.	18,150/-
5.	Towards funeral, obsequies expenses and transportation of dead body	Rs.	18,150/-
6.	Medical expenses	Rs.	1,350/-
	Total	Rs.	12,78,606/-

¶43

The Tribunal has also awarded the interest at

¶44

the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed respondent No.3/insurer to pay the compensation awarded with interest. The claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35407 MFA No. 1417 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that, the accident occurred on 09.10.2019 and for the said year, the notional income fixed as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is Rs.14,000/- and the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.12,705/- based on minimum wages. The claimants are wife, four children and mother of the deceased and they are entitled to loss of consortium in a sum of Rs.40,000/- each and the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶49

Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer would contend that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there are no grounds for enhancement. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35407 MFA No. 1417 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Having heard both the learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer, the Court has perused the Judgment and Award.

¶53

The accident occurred on 09.10.2019 and the

¶54

deceased was aged about fifty six (56) years as on the date of accident. The deceased was working as a Laterate stone cutter and agricultural labour. The claimants have not established the income of the deceased and therefore, the notional income is to be taken into consideration. The

¶55

Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.12,705/- based on minimum wages. The notional income fixed for the year 2020 is Rs.14,000/- as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State legal Services Authority and same is taken into consideration. The Tribunal has rightly taken 10% towards future prospects and deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier '9'. Considering the same, loss of dependency is calculated as under:

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35407 MFA No. 1417 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

14,000 + 10% (1,400) = 15,400 - 1/4^th = 11,550 X 12 X 9 = 12,47,400.

¶59

The claimants are wife, four children and mother of the deceased and the claimants are entitled to consortium in a sum of Rs.40,000/each i.e., Rs.2,40,000/- (40,000 X 6) as against Rs.48,400/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

The claimants are not entitled to loss of love and affection awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.60,500/- in view of award of loss of consortium.

¶61

The claimants are entitled to loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- as against Rs.18,150/- each awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,350/towards medical expenses.

¶63

Considering all the above aspects, the claimants are entitled to total compensation under various heads as under:

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35407 MFA No. 1417 of 2026

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Sl.	Compensation Heads		Amount
No.
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.	12,47,400/-
2.	Loss of consortium	Rs.	2,40,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	Rs.	15,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses	Rs.	15,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	Rs.	1,350/-
	Total	Rs.	15,18,750/-

¶67

The claimants are entitled to total compensation

¶68

of Rs.15,18,750/- as against Rs.12,78,606/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶69

Consequently, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,40,144/- (15,18,750 - 12,78,606) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶70

Respondent No.3/insurer is liable to pay

¶71

enhanced compensation amount with interest.

¶72

In view of the above, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed-inpart .

¶75

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35407 MFA No. 1417 of 2026

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

ii) The appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,40,144/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶78

iii) Respondent No.3/insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from this day, failing which, it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from this day till date of payment.

¶79

iv) The appellant Nos.1 to 5/claimants Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to release of entire enhanced compensation in the ratio of 60:10:10:10:10.

¶80

v) The appellants/claimants are not entitled to interest for delay period of 650 days in filing the appeal.

¶81

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶82

KLV

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Susheel Poojarthy v. Raju K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheel Poojarthy v. Raju K

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

Ranjitha H H Vs Santhosh B

Sri. Shivaraj. K. S. Vs M/S. Rapid Carrier Pvt. Ltd.

The Divisional Controller Vs Smt Lakshmamma

C S Ramesh Vs Divisional Controller K S R T C

Sri. Sudakar Vs Sri. Abdul Asharf

M/S Medi Scope Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Nayeem Uddin Khan