Jayalakshmi Vs Mrs K Prasadini Hegde

MRS K PRASADINI HEGDE (MAJOR), W/O K KRISHNA KUMAR HEGDE ALIAS KRISHNA KUMAR HEGDE, R/AT HOUSE NO.401, ZEN GARDEN, KITTUR CHENNAMMA ROAD, AJJARAKAD, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101

¶25

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD REP BY ITS MANAGER, SREE VITTAL, MAIN ROAD, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE, MANGALORE TALUK, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 158

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.05.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 424/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:34818 MFA No. 5252 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

The claimants, being dissatisfied with the

¶36

compensation, are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶37

It is not in dispute that, as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 07.01.2018,

¶38

Sri Kumareshan @ Kumaresan S., a 32 year old died.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶40

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 Kumareshan @ Kumaresan S. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation:

¶41

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in(Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	16,80,000
2.	Loss of filial consortium to petitioner No.1	44,000

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:34818 MFA No. 5252 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

3.	Towards loss of Estate		16,500
	Towards transportation	of
4.	dead body, funeral obsequies expenses	and	16,500
	Total		17,57,000

¶46

It is the primary contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred while considering the income of deceased at Rs.12,500/- notionally, despite the claimants placed Ex.P11-salary certificate of the deceased and examined the employer of deceased as PW.3. By placing reliance on Ex.P11, he contended that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. He also contended that the Tribunal has erred by not awarding compensation under the head of consortium to claimants Nos.2 and 3. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for the Insurance Company by supporting the impugned judgment and award contended that the deceased was employed in the bakery as sales man and Ex.P11 is the concocted document, which cannot be relied to determine the income of the deceased. He submits that PW.3 is the owner of the said bakery and colluding with

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34818 MFA No. 5252 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the claimants, he adduced the evidence before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/- notionally, since the accident was of the year 2018. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties

¶52

and perused the impugned judgment and other documents placed before this Court.

¶53

On careful examination of testimony of PW.3, he

¶54

categorically stated that the deceased was working in his bakery as sales man from past 6 years prior to his death and he was drawing salary of Rs.18,000/- per month and to that effect, he had issued Ex.P11-salary certificate. Though the Insurance Company cross-examined PW.3 at length, nothing worthwhile has been elicited from him to discard his testimony. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the evidence of PW.3 and salary certificate as per Ex.P11. Hence, the income assessed by the Tribunal requires modification. However, by considering the nature of employment, it is just and appropriate to assess the salary of

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34818 MFA No. 5252 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month instead of

¶58

Rs.12,500/-.

¶59

Since the deceased was aged about 32 years, appropriate multiplier would be '16' and 40% future prospects requires to be added and as he was a bachelor, 50% requires to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.20,16,000/- (15,000 + 40% - 50% X 12 X 16) towards 'loss of dependency' as against Rs.16,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

The claimants, being the mother, sister and elder brother of the deceased, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.1,45,200/- (48,400 x 3) and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads” .

¶61