Moose Kunhi Beary Vs Mahammad Azaruddeen

S/O. LATE. ABBAS BEARY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR MONADKA SCHOOL, CHARMADY POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MASHA ALLA MANZIL MADHAPURA, PANJALA, TALAPADY, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT. PIN-575012

¶10

MR. ISMAIL

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

S/O. LATE. ABBAS BEARY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-51/4, NEAR CHARMADY SCHOOL, CHARMADI, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. PIN-574228

¶13

SMT. SAKEENA D/O. LATE. ABBAS BEARY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT INDIRANAGARA, MUDIGERE TALUK, BILAGULA, HESAGAL, CHIKMAGALURU PIN-577 132.

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20116 MFA No. 5682 of 2024

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SMT. MAIMUNA @ MUBEENA D/O. LATE. ABBAS BEARY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT D. NO.306, SUBHASH NAGARA, MUDIGERE, BILAGOLA, HESGA, CHIKMAGALURU PIN-577132

¶17

MAHAMMAD SHAREEF M., S/O. LATE. ABBAS BEARY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR SCHOOL, CHARMADY POST, CHARMADY, BELTHAGNADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. PIN-574228

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

MAHAMMAD AZARUDDEEN

¶22

S/O. C. ABDULLA, ADULT, RESIDING AT GANDHI NAGARA, JANATHA COLONY, CHARMADY VILLAGE, KAKKINJE POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K. DISTRICT. PIN-574 228.

¶23

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 2^nd FLOOR SANTHOSH TOWERS, OPP. BUS STAND, BELTHANGADY LOCAL OFFICE 2^nd FLOOR, RAM BHAVAN COMPLEX, KODIALBALL,

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20116 MFA No. 5682 of 2024

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER PIN-575 001.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y K SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 17.09.2025, NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1001/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, D.K.MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶33

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants

¶34

under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.10.2026 passed in MVC No.1001/2020 by the VI Additional District

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20116 MFA No. 5682 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

and Sessions Judge and MACT, D.K. Mangaluru (for short

¶38

'the Tribunal') seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Abbas Beary, met with an accident on 21.04.2020 and subsequently died. His major children filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶40

The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.3,45,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶41

Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have preferred this appeal, contending that the Abbas Beary was aged 71 years and was working as a coolie, earning Rs.800/- per day and contributing to the family. PW.1 deposed that they were living jointly and produced the ration card to show that the he was residing with his wife and children. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking only 15% towards loss of estate and failed to grant 10% escalation under consortium and conventional heads and thus requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20116 MFA No. 5682 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted

¶45

that the deceased was aged 71 years at the time of the accident and that all the children are major, residing separately and not dependent on the Abbas Beary.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Ex.P.10 establishes that all the claimants are the legal representatives of the Abbas Beary.

¶47

The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no material to show dependency. However, PW.1 has deposed that he was dependent on the income of his father and that he was residing with him, while the other siblings were residing separately.

¶48

The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7199/2025 (arising out of SLP No . 27779/2023) in Jitender Kumar Vs. Sanjay

¶49

Prasad and Others, wherein it is held that even if the legal representatives are not dependent on the deceased, they are entitled to compensation, and deduction towards

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20116 MFA No. 5682 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

personal and living expenses should be taken at 50%. It is further held that they are entitled to 10% escalation as per Pranay Sethi .

¶53

He further relied upon the judgement of this

¶54

Court in MFA No.7318/2016 (B.V.Gopala and Anr. Vs. Mehaboob Pasha) for the same proposition that even major, married, and earning sons of the deceased are legal representatives and have the right to seek compensation. It is further held that it is the bounded duty of the Tribunal to consider their claim, irrespective of whether they are fully dependent on the deceased or not. However, in such cases, the compensation may be restricted to the conventional heads.

¶55

Further reliance is placed on the principles laid

¶56

down in Birender’s case , and it is contended that the decision in Manavalagan’s case is not applicable to the present facts.

¶57

The deceased met with the accident in the year 2020. Therefore, his notional income is taken at

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20116 MFA No. 5682 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Rs.14,500/- per month. He was aged 71 years, and the appropriate multiplier is ‘5’. He is not entitled to future prospects, and 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,500/- × 12 × 5 × 50% = Rs.4,35,000/-.

¶61

The appellants, being the children of the deceased, are entitled to parental consortium of Rs.44,000/each. Further, they are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under conventional heads.

¶62

Accordingly, the compensation payable is

¶63

recalculated as follows:

¶64

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	4,35,000.00
Loss of parental consortium	2,20,000.00
(Rs.44,000 x 5 dependency)
Conventional heads	33,000.00
Total	6,88,000.00

¶65

Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,88,000.00/as against

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20116 MFA No. 5682 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Rs.3,45,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation therefore amounts to Rs.3,42,500/-. To this extent, the award passed by the Tribunal requires modification.

¶69

In the result, the following order is passed :

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶72

ii. The judgment and award dated 17.10.2026 passed in MVC No.1001/2020 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, D.K. Mangaluru, is hereby modified;

¶73

iii. Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation of Rs.6,88,000/- with interest 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, within one month from the date of this order.

¶74

iv. Upon such deposit, the appellants/claimants are permitted to

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:20116 MFA No. 5682 of 2024

¶76