Smt Pillamma Vs the Divisional Controller

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08/09/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., CHIKKABALLAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:35210 MFA No. 7509 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶25

2. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 08.09.2017 passed by the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chickballapur (for short 'Tribunal') in MVC.No.101/2016 for enhancement of compensation.

¶26

3. Suresh S/o Krishnappa met with an accident on 20.05.2016 and his parents filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence of record awarded an amount of Rs.6,19,000/with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said order, claimant preferred an appeal.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35210 MFA No. 7509 of 2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

4. It is stated that petitioner No.2, father of the deceased, died during the pendency of the proceedings and this appeal is filed by the mother of the deceased Suresh and she contended that her son was a mason and earning Rs.8,000/per month. But the Tribunal erred in taking his income as Rs.6,000/- per month and he was a skilled worker and civil contractor was paying him Rs.1,000/- per day. Future prospects were not granted and the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the mother for the purpose of calculation and the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier '18' and Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation under the other conventional heads and hence prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

¶30

5. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the Tribunal granted excess amount under the conventional heads and interest to be modified to 6% per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner though stated that he was earning Rs.1,000/per day but she has not produced any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2016, it is just and reasonable to take the notional income as Rs.9,500/- per moth as per the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35210 MFA No. 7509 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

chart prepared by K arnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 22 years and the relevant multiplier is '18'. As per the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi¹ , he is entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects and as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors., vs. Delhi transport Corporation and another² 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses, as he was a bachelor. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 14,36,400/- (9,500+ 40% × 12 × 18 - 50%) towards loss of dependency and the same is confirmed. Petitioner No. 1- the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium and she is also entitled to Rs.30,000/- under conventional heads.

¶34

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below:

¶35

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶36

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35210 MFA No. 7509 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	14,36,400
2	Towards filial consortium	40,000
3	Towards conventional heads	30,000
	Total	15,06,400

¶40

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶41

compensation of Rs.15,06,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶42

In the result, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶45

ii. The judgment and award dated 08.09.2017 passed in MVC No.101/2016 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chickballapur, is modified.

¶46

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,06,400/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.6,19,000 /- granted by the Tribunal.

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35210 MFA No. 7509 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

iv. Respondent - Divisional Controller, KSRTC has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent - Divisional Controller, KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,87,400/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶50

v. On such deposit, petitioner - mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶51

vi. Appellant is not entitled for interest for a delayed period of 264 days as per the order dated 30.05.2024 on I.A.No.1/2018.

¶52

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶53

AG

¶54

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33

Smt Pillamma v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pillamma v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumar Vs Manupallavi. R

K.P. Rani Vs Venkatesh Gowda K.G.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Santhosh Kumar Yadav

Sri Krishna Naik Vs a.N.Lakshminaryana

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Javaraiah

Sri Ghouse Peer Vs Smt. Tahera Banu