Girija Dogu Vs Sandeep Poojary

APPELLANT Nos.2 TO 5 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE DOGU HARIJANA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.1-142, NELYARAPALKE MANE, HADIYANGADI POST, SHRILALU VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-574101.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY MS. PAYAL DECHAMMA C.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI PAVAN CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶25

2 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:494-DB MFA No. 5898 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

AND:

¶29

SANDEEP POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE SHEKARA POOJARI, R/AT LAXMI NIVASA, PAYYANDE PADIBETTU, HADIYANGADI POST, SHIRLAL VILLAGE, KARKAL TALUK-574101.

¶30

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED IND.INS.CO.LTD., KARKALA BRANCH, PB No.29, 2^ND FLOOR, SUSHILA SANJIV ENCLAVE, NEAR KARNATAKA BANK, MARKET ROAD, KARKALA-574104.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSEDWITH)

¶33

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.220/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:494-DB MFA No. 5898 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶41

The appellants/claimants - mother, sisters and brother of

¶42

the deceased-Ramesh are in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 13.02.2023 in M.V.C. No.220/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and ACJM at Karkala, Udupi District¹ , with a prayer for enhancement of compensation.

¶43

The accident that took place on 13.10.2020 involving Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No.KA-20-EK-4163 and the accidental death of Ramesh are not in dispute in this appeal.

¶44

The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988² , claiming compensation for the accidental death of Ramesh in a road traffic accident, on the ground that they were totally dependent on him. It is stated that he was aged 26 years as on the date of accident and was earning a sum of ₹30,000/- per month by doing coolie work. Respondent No.2-Insurer filed objections denying the entire

¶45

1 Tribunal

¶46

2 M.V. Act

¶47

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:494-DB MFA No. 5898 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

claim petition averments however, admitted the Policy. Further contented that the rider of two wheeler was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. Claimant No.1-mother of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 apart from marking Exs.P1 to P22 documents, whereas respondent No.2 examined RW.1 and RW.2 and marked Exs.R.1 and R.2 and also Exs.C.1 and C.2 documents were marked.

¶50

The Tribunal, on appreciation of the material on record, awarded a total compensation of ₹16,61,010/- on the following

¶51

heads:

¶52

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Loss of Estate	16,500/-
2.	Transportation and funeral expenses	16,500/-
3.	Loss of Filial consortium and parental compensation	2,20,000/-
4.	Loss of Dependency	11,42,400/-
5.	Medical expenses of deceased priortohis death	2,35,610/-
6.	Nourishment food, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000/-
	Total	16,61,010/-

¶53

4.1 While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at ₹8,000/- per month,

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:494-DB MFA No. 5898 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied '17' multiplier as the deceased was 26 years.

¶58

Heard Ms. Payal Dechamma C.V., learned counsel for Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty.H., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire material on record.

¶59

The only ground urged for enhancement of compensation is that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹8,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income of the deceased at ₹14,500/- per month in terms of the notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident of the year 2020. Learned counsel thus prays for reassessment of the notional income of the deceased at ₹14,500/- as against ₹8,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal.

¶60

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is no material placed on record to establish the income of

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:494-DB MFA No. 5898 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the deceased and the Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at ₹8,000/- per month. Further it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶64

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point that falls for consideration is as to "whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation?"

¶65

8.1 The answer to the above point would be in the 'affirmative' for the following reasons:

¶66

As stated above, the accident and the accidental death of Ramesh, son of claimant No.1, are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased at ₹8,000/- per month. There is no doubt that no material is placed on record to establish the income of the deceased. When no material is placed on record to assess the income, the Tribunal shall assess the income of

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:494-DB MFA No. 5898 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the deceased notionally. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2020 is ₹14,500/- per month. Taking note of the same, we reassess the income of the deceased at ₹14,500/- per month as against ₹8,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is right in adding 40% of the assessed income towards 'future prospects' and in deducting 50% of the assessed income towards 'personal expenses' as the deceased was a bachelor and in applying '17' multiplier for the age of 26 years. Thus, loss of dependency is reassessed as under;

¶70

Rs.14,500/+ Rs.5,800/(40% towards future prospects) =Rs.20,300/-;

¶71

Rs.20,300/- (-) Rs.10,150/- (50% towards personal expenses) = Rs.10,150/-.

¶72

Thus, loss of Dependency = Rs.10,150/- x 17 x 12 = Rs.20,70,600/-

¶73

The Tribunal is also justified in awarding ‘loss of consortium’ at the rate of ₹44,000/- to each of the appellants/claimants including escalation. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the following modified compensation:

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:494-DB MFA No. 5898 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Loss of Estate	16,500/-
2.	Transportation and funeral expenses	16,500/-
3.	Loss of Filial consortium and parental compensation (Rs.44,000x5)	2,20,000/-
4.	Loss of Dependency	20,70,600/-
5.	Medical expenses of deceased priortohis death	2,35,610/-
6.	Nourishment food, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000/-
	Total	25,89,210/-

¶78

With the above modification, the appeal is allowed-inpart and the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of ₹25,89,210/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at ₹16,61,010/-. Thereby, the appellants/claimants would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.9,28,200/- . Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.9,28,200/-, claimant No.1, mother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.7,08,200/-, claimant No.3 is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and claimants No.2, 4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each.

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:494-DB MFA No. 5898 of 2023

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

The judgment and award of the Tribunal in respect of deposit and release of the compensation amount payable to appellants No.1 to 5 remains unaltered.

¶83

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶85

MV

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Girija Dogu v. Sandeep Poojary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girija Dogu v. Sandeep Poojary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.Narayanaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

The General Manager Vs a Thiruselvam

The Honble Additional Registrar Vs Sri Nanjunda Shetty

Sri Krishnna Murthy R Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Deepa S Vs Hdfc Ergo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Canara Bank