Kamala Devi Vs the Manager

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3653/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITINAL JUDGE AND ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 07.01.2025 passed in MVC

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19602 MFA No. 4637 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

No.3653/2023 on the file of the XVIII Additional Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-4) for enhancing the compensation.

¶37

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶38

Brief facts of the case are that, one Jugaraj Prajapath, met with an accident on 30.03.2023 and died subsequently. His wife and children filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.80,62,664/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have preferred this appeal and mainly contended that Jugaraj Prajapath was working as a

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19602 MFA No. 4637 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

teacher in a Government Pre-School and was earning a gross salary of Rs.70,413/- per month. Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of pay slips and Ex.P.13 is the pay certificate. But the Tribunal considered his income as Rs.60,413/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have granted 30% towards loss of future prospects, as he was a permanent employee, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company

¶43

Ltd Vs. Praneya Sethi¹ case and interest is to be granted at a higher rate.

¶44

Admittedly, Jugaraj Prajapath was a

¶45

Government employee and he filed relevant documents. After deduction of tax, the Tribunal has rightly considered his income as Rs.60,413/- per month, which is not in dispute. As he was a Government employee, he is entitled to an addition of 30% towards future prospects and 1/3^rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. He was

¶46

aged 48 years and the relevant multiplier is ‘13’.

¶47

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19602 MFA No. 4637 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.81,67,838/- (60,413+30%×12×13-1/3^rd ). Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.48,000/- towards spousal consortium. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled to Rs.48,000/- each towards parental consortium. The petitioners are entitled to Rs.36,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶51

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below:

¶52

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	81,67,838/-
2	Towards spousal consortium	48,000/-
3	Towards parental consortium	96,000/-
	(Rs.48,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3)
3	Towards conventional heads	36,000/-
	Total	83,47,838/-

¶53

Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.83,47,838/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19602 MFA No. 4637 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶59

ii. The judgment and award dated 07.01.2025 passed in MVC No.3653/2023 on the file of the XVIII Additional Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-4) is modified.

¶60

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.83,47,838/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.80,62,664/granted by the Tribunal.

¶61

iv. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.1/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of

¶62