R Gangaiah Vs Gujjula Venkataramana Reddy

M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 4^TH FLOOR, 59^TH C CROSS, 4^TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010 REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R1 - SERVED BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.4944/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-23, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION BARRED BY TIME.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:17618 MFA No. 6015 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

The Tribunal passed a common award dated 26.11.2020 in MVC No.4944/2018 and 4945/2018. The present appeal in MFA No.6015/2024 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.4944/2018 by the Court of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-23), (for short, 'the Tribunal') seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶31

One Karthik @ Roddam Karthik and Manjunatha @ Galiveti Manjunath met with an accident on 24.04.2018 and subsequently died. His parents filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.14,40,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶32

Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal contending that the deceasedKarthik was earning Rs.500/- per day, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. It is further contented that the compensation

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17618 MFA No. 6015 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

awarded under various heads is meager. Therefore, they requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶36

Though it is stated that the Karthik was earning Rs.500/- per day, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. Considering that the accident occurred in the year 2018, this Court finds it reasonable to take the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The Karthik was aged 16 years at the time of the accident and the applicable multiplier is '18'. He is entitled for an addition of 40% towards future prospects, as he was a bachelor, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to 12,500 + 40% X 12 X 18 -50% = Rs.18,90,000/-.

¶37

The claimants are parents of the deceased and each of them are entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium and they are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶38

Accordingly, the compensation payable is recalculated as follows:

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17618 MFA No. 6015 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	18,90,000.00
Loss of filial consortium	80,000.00
(Rs.40,000/- x 2)
Conventional heads	30,000.00
Total	20,00,000.00

¶42

Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- as against Rs.14,40,800/awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation therefore amounts to Rs.5,59,200/-. To this extent, the award passed by the Tribunal requires modification.

¶43

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Appeal is allowed in part .

¶46

ii. The judgment and award dated 26.11.2020 passed in MVC No.4944/2018 by the Court of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-23), is hereby modified;

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:17618 MFA No. 6015 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

iii. The respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶50

iv. The Insurance Company, having already deposited 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is directed to deposit the balance compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, within a period of one month from the date of this order.

¶51

v. On such deposit, the claimants (parents of the deceased) are permitted to withdraw the same in equal proportion.

¶52

vi. As ordered by the Tribunal, the principle of pay and recovery shall apply. The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.

¶53

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶54

TMP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

R Gangaiah v. Gujjula Venkataramana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Gangaiah v. Gujjula Venkataramana Reddy

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

Sri Keshavamurthy Vs the Manager

The Manager Vs Shri Madappa B D

Hemalatha N Vs K Gangappa

Smt Mallamma T Bulla Vs Sri Raveendra Byatanal

Smt Milana v T Vs Sri Anil Kumar S

Smt. Rathnamma v Vs the Managing Director (Bmtc)