Sumithra Vs Sundar Poojary

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.512/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:13714-DB MFA No. 7549 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶35

The claimants in MVC No.512/2024 have preferred this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 30.06.2025 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T. at Udupi (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶36

The appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the accidental death of Krishnamoorthi (deceased). Petitioner No.1 is the wife; petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children; petitioner No.4 is the unmarried sister; and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased.

¶37

2.1 It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of a car bearing Reg.No.KA-18-P-6177 by its driver on 04.02.2024 at about 7.00 p.m. It is further pleaded that the deceased succumbed to the accidental injuries on 10.02.2024. The deceased was stated to be earning Rs.1,200/- per day by working as a mason. It is further submitted that the petitioners were dependent on the income of the deceased.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13714-DB MFA No. 7549 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

2.2 Though notice was served, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex parte . Respondent No.2 appeared and filed a written statement denying the averments made in the petition. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased.

¶41

2.3 Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1. Another witness was examined as PW2. In support of their claim, the petitioners marked Ex.P1 to P14. The respondents neither adduced any evidence nor produced any documents.

¶42

2.4 The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence on record and in the absence of proof of established income, assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,500/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased as 45 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14, added 25% towards future prospects, and made a deduction of ¼ towards personal expenses, there being six dependants.In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.27,14,208/- with interest at 6% per annum. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13714-DB MFA No. 7549 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Smt. Payal Dechamma C.V., learned counsel for Sri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is submitted that the deceased was working as a mason and was earning Rs.1,200/- per day. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side.

¶46

Sri P. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2–Insurer, submits that the compensation awarded is based on the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased in the absence of proof of income.

¶47

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the entire material record.

¶48

The occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle, the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2, are not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13714-DB MFA No. 7549 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The accident occurred in the year 2024. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,500/-. However, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income for accidents of the year 2024 is Rs.16,500/- per month. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is modified to Rs.16,500/- per month for the purpose of computing the compensation.

¶52

Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to the following modified compensation under the head of loss of dependency:

¶53

Rs.16,500 + (25% of 16500) = Rs.20,625/-

¶54

Rs.20,625 – (1/4^th of 20,625) = Rs.15,469/-

¶55

Rs.15,469 X 12 X 14= Rs.25,98,792/-.

¶56

Insofar as the age of the deceased, the applicable multiplier, the percentage of future prospects, and the deduction towards personal expenses are concerned, the same are in accordance with law. We find no error warranting interference.

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13714-DB MFA No. 7549 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Accordingly, the total compensation is recomputed as

¶60

under:

¶61

Sl.No.	Heads of compensation	Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency Rs.	25,98,792/-
2.	Loss of consortium Rs.	2,40,000/-
3.	Loss of estate Rs.	15,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses and transportation Rs.	18,000/-
	TOTAL Rs.	28,71,792/-

¶62

The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.28,71,792/- as against Rs.27,14,208/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

In the light of the above, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

a) Appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶66

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.28,71,792/- as against Rs.27,14,208/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶67