Shyamalamma Vs Reliance Gen Insurance Company Ltd.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.15.04.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.2924/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM, BENGALURU CITY, (SCCH-17), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 15.04.2024 passed in MVC No.2924/2023 on the file of the XIX Additional Judge, Court OF Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru City for enhancing the compensation.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20555 MFA No. 7067 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶33

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶34

Chandrappa @ Chandra met with an accident on 28.04.2023 and died subsequently. His wife and children filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.27,00,000/-. Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted an amount of Rs.22,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation.

¶35

Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal and mainly contended that Chandrappa was a heavy transport vehicle driver and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and also filed driving license. But the Tribunal erred in taking his correct income at the time of the death and thus the claimants requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20555 MFA No. 7067 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant stated that he also filed the driving licence of Chandrappa to show that he was a driver of heavy vehicle and hence requested this court to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the driving license was expired way back in the year 2016 and it was not renewed later. Thus it cannot be presumed that he was still continuing as a driver of the heavy vehicle, at the time of the accident. Mere filing of the driving license is not sufficient to prove the income. Therefore, tribunal has rightly considered the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and it is confirmed.

¶40

The deceased was aged 47 years and the relevant multiplier to be taken is ‘13’. The claimants are entitled for 25% towards future prospects and 1/3^rd is to be deducted towards loss of personal expenses. Therefore, loss of

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20555 MFA No. 7067 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

dependency is as follows Rs.16,000 + 25% x 12 x 13 - 1/3^rd = Rs.20,80,000/-. The petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.48,000/- towards spousal consortium. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.48,000/-

¶44

each towards parental consortium and they are also entitled for Rs.36,000/- under the conventional head.

¶45

Thus in all, components awarded by this court are

¶46

as below,

¶47

Sl. Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	20,80,000
2	Towards loss of consortium	1,44,000
3	Conventional heads	36,000
	Total	22,60,000

¶48

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is

¶49

enhanced from Rs.22,45,000/- to Rs.22,60,000 /- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20555 MFA No. 7067 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶55

ii. The judgment and award dated 15.04.2024 passed in MVC No.2924/2023 on the file of the XIX Additional Judge, Court OF Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru City, is modified.

¶56

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.22,60,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.22,45,000/granted by the tribunal.

¶57

iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has

¶58

already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed

¶59