Sumalatha Vs Kapoor Deisels Garrage Pvt. Ltd.

T C SUDARSHAN KUMAR S/O LATE T.C. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED THEIR NATURE MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1^ST APPELLANT, ALL ARE R/AT 2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMINAGAR, BATAWADE, TUMAKURU-572102.

¶18

APPELLANTS

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:22125 MFA No. 4623 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

KAPOOR DEISELS GARRAGE PVT LTD BY ITS MANAGER, NO.29/5, VILLAGE NANGLI, POONA G.T. KARNAL ROAD, NEW DELHI-110036

¶25

THE MANAGER

¶26

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, KAROLBAGH (311301) NEW DELHI-110005.

¶27

RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DT 22.04.2026 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1154/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT-XI TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:22125 MFA No. 4623 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2023 passed in MVC.No.1154/2018 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI, Tumakuru, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶37

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶38

T.S. Rakesh met with an accident on 23.02.2018 and died subsequently. His wife, children and parents have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal by considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.20,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed mainly by contending that, T.S. Rakesh, was aged 29 years doing real estate business and earning Rs.25,000/- per

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22125 MFA No. 4623 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

month. But the Tribunal has erred in taking his notional income as Rs.12,500/- as per the charter. There are 6 members in the family including the deceased, 2 minor children, if he could have spent Rs.500/- per month to each member, he would have earned Rs.30,000/- per month and 1/5^th is to be deducted towards personal expenses and 100% future prospects is to be added. The Tribunal granted meager amounts under the other heads and interest is to be granted at the higher rate and thus requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶42

Though the petitioners stated that the deceased was doing real estate business, she has not filed any proof of income. The respondnets have no objection for adding future prospects. In this case, it is for the claimants to prove the age, income of the deceased by duly adducing proper evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that deceased was aged 29 years, he passed his 10^th class as per Ex.P.22, born on 25.03.1989. As there are other 5 members in the family, his income should be presumed as Rs.30,000/- per month, she has not filed any document to prove his occupation or income, mere pleading in the application is not sufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered his notional income has Rs.12,500/-

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:22125 MFA No. 4623 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as he met with an accident in the year 2018. The deceased was aged 29 years and the relevant multiplier is '17'. The claimants are entitled for 40% towards future prospects and 1/4^th is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,500/- + 40% X 12 X 17 - 1/4^th =26,77,500/-. Petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.48,000/- towards spouse consortium, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.48,000/- each towards parental consortium, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 each are entitled for Rs.48,000/- for filial consortium and they are also entitled for Rs.36,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶47

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶48

as below:

¶49

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards loss of dependency	26,77,500/-
2.	Loss of spouse consortium	48,000/-/-
3.	Parental consortium	96,000/-
4.	Towards filial consortium	96,000/-
5.	Loss of conventional heads	36,000/-
	Total	29,53,500/-

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:22125 MFA No. 4623 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for a

¶54

total compensation of Rs.29,53,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶55

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

ii. The judgment and award dated 05.04.2023 passed in MVC.No.1154/2018 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI, Tumakuru, is modified.

¶59

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.29,53,500/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.20,88,000/- granted by the tribunal.

¶60

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,65,500/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶61