Smt. Kousalya Vs Sri. Rajanna

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.3591/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 6^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-2), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 22.12.2022 passed in MVC No.3591/2019 by the VI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes and Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-2).

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31729 MFA No. 3551 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Even though the matter is listed today for

¶33

admission, it is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶34

The claimants made a claim petition praying to

¶35

award compensation for the death of Heriya Shettigar in a road traffic accident occurred on 09.05.2019 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA52-J-7753. The Tribunal recorded the evidence and appreciating the evidence assessed the compensation and

¶36

awarded compensation under different heads as under:

¶37

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
01.	Towards loss of dependency	22,26,060.00
02.	Loss of love and affection and consortium	1,20,000.00 (40,000 x 3)
03.	Medical expenses	29,814.00
04.	Attendant charges	3,000.00
05.	Loss of estate	15,000.00
06.	Funeral expenses	15,000.00
07.	Towards transportation	5,000.00
	Total	24,13,874.00

¶38

The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and directed

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:31729 MFA No. 3551 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

respondent No.2/insurer to pay the compensation amount with interest. The claimants seeking enhancement of compensation have filed the present appeal.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2 / insurer.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants would contend

¶45

that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 34 years, 7 months as per Aadhar Card. The date of birth of the deceased as per Aadhar Card is 30.11.1985. The Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the deceased as 36 years and applying 15 multiplier. Since the age of the deceased is less than 35 years, the multiplier applicable is 16. He further submits that the claimants are entitled to escalation at 10% every three years from the year 2017 till date on conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

¶46

Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (AIR 2017 SC 5157) and it is to be calculated till date. With this he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31729 MFA No. 3551 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/ insurer

¶50

would contend that the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation and there are no grounds for enhancement.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court

¶52

has perused the judgment and award.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellants placed on record, the certified copy of Ex.P6, P.M.report wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 35 years and also copy of Aadhar Card wherein the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 30.11.1985. Considering the said aspect, the age of deceased is 34 years 7 months as on the date of the accident i.e. 09.05.2019. As the age of the deceased is less than 35 years, the multiplier applicable is 16. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be as under:

¶54

Rs.14,000 + 40% (5,600) = Rs.19,600/-.

¶55

Rs.19,600-1/3=Rs.13,067x12x16= Rs.25,08,864/-

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:31729 MFA No. 3551 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

¶59

claimants are entitled to escalation at 10% every three years from 2017 as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and as on the this day the escalation has to be calculated at 20% on the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rojalini Nayak and others vs. Ajit Sahoo and others (2024) 8 SCC 239 wherein escalation has been calculated as on the date of the judgment. The accident in the case on hand has taken place in the year 2019. The escalation has to be calculated from the year 2017 at 10% for every three years. Therefore, as on this day, the escalation on conventional heads to be calculated is 20%. The claimants 1 to 3 are entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- + 20% escalation i.e. Rs.48,000/- each, and it comes to Rs.1,44,000/-. The claimants are entitled to funeral expenses in a sum of Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-, totally

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:31729 MFA No. 3551 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Rs.30,000/- and escalation at 20% comes to Rs.30,000/+ 6,000/- = Rs.36,000/-. Since escalation is calculated on conventional heads as on today, the claimants are not entitled to interest on the amount awarded under the conventional heads up to this day.

¶63

In view of the above, claimants are entitled to

¶64

total compensation under different heads as under:

¶65

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
01.	Towards loss of dependency	25,08,864.00
02.	Loss of love and affection and consortium	1,44,000.00
03.	Medical expenses	29,814.00
04.	Attendant charges	3,000.00
05.	Loss of estate and funeral expenses	36,000.00
	Total	27,21,678.00

¶66

Considering the above, the claimants are entitled

¶67

to total compensation of Rs.27,21,678/- as against Rs.24,13,874/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are not entitled to interest on the amount awarded under conventional heads (Rs.1,44,000 + Rs.36,000) since escalation is calculated till today. Therefore, the claimants

¶68

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:31729 MFA No. 3551 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

are entitled to interest on Rs.25,41,678/- (Rs.27,21,678 –

¶71

Rs.1,80,000) @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimants are entitled to interest on Rs.1,80,000/@ 6% p.a. from this date till

¶72

payment/deposit. In view of the above, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The appellants -claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.27,21,678/- as against Rs.24,13,874/- as awarded by the Tribunal. iii) The claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization on Rs.25,41,678/-.

¶75

iv) The claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.1,80,000/- from this day till deposit/payment.

¶76

v) Respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the award amount with interest excluding the amount already deposited before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from this day, failing which, it is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from this day till payment/deposit of compensation amount.

¶77

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:31729 MFA No. 3551 of 2023

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

vi) The claimants are not entitled to interest for the delay period of 215 days in filing the appeal.

¶80

vii) The claimants No.1 to 3 are entitled to release of their share of compensation as determined by the Tribunal.

¶81

viii) The share of claimant No.2 / minor shall be kept in fixed deposit with Karnataka Bank, Magistrate Court Branch, Bengaluru, till he attains the age of majority.

¶82

ix) Claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the interest on the said fixed deposit for every three months for the expenses of minor claimant No.2.

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶85

DKB

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt. Kousalya v. Sri. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kousalya v. Sri. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushparaj K Vs Abdul Haneef

Shri Rajiv Goyal Vs the Director

Master Yashwanth K K Vs Sri. Gajendra Reddy

Smt Pillamma Vs G v Ramesh

Sowbhagya Vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Pavitra Vs Prakash @ Channaveerappa