Javaraiah Vs Shashikala K

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, TP HUB NO.2912, SRI VENKATESHWARA 2 MVC 759/2019 PLAZA I MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU - 570 009

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R2 IS SERVED)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.05.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.759/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

The appeal is filed seeking enhancement of

¶32

compensation.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28705 MFA No. 3466 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

It is not in dispute that as a result of the motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 19.05.2019, Rani @ Ranamma, a 48 year old died.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle was insured.

¶37

The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident which has resulted in the death of Rani @ Ranamma. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation:

¶38

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	10,40,052
2.	Funeral expenses & Transportation charges	15,000
3.	Loss of estate	15,000
4.	Loss of love and affection	25,000
5.	Filial Consortium	40,000
	Total	11,35,052

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28705 MFA No. 3466 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

In order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.8,000/As there is no credible evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2019, would be Rs.14,000/-.

¶42

Since the deceased was aged 48 years, 25% requires to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, which would result in the income to be Rs.17,500/-.

¶43

The Tribunal has held that since three daughters of the deceased were married, they cannot be treated as dependents and therefore, the husband and unmarried daughter of the deceased could only be treated as dependants and accordingly, 1/3^rd was deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased while computing the loss of dependency. In my view, the said finding is just and appropriate. As such, applying the multiplier of '13' since the deceased was aged 48 years, the loss of dependency would be Rs.18,20,052/- (Rs.17,500 - 1/3 X 12 X 13). Thus, the claimant would be entitled to

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28705 MFA No. 3466 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Rs.18,20,052/towards loss of dependency as against Rs.10,40,052/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

The claimants being the husband and daughters, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.2,42,000/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads” .

¶48

Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums:

¶49

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	18,20,052
2.	Loss of Consortium	2,42,000
3.	Conventional Heads	36,300/-
	Total	20,98,352

¶50

Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.20,98,352/- as against Rs.11,35,052/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶51