Smt. Rajeevi Vs Sri. Vinith Kumar K N

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:22431 MFA No. 7596 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7596 OF 2019(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RAJEEVI, W/O LATE MANJUNATH OMAYYA KHARVI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT OM SHIVAM NILAYA, MAVINKURVE HOUSE, BHATKAL TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 581 320.

¶9

KUMARI VIDYASHRI,

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

D/O LATE MANJUNATH OMAYYA KHARVI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT OM SHIVAM NILAYA, MAVINKURVE HOUSE, BHATKAL TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 581 320.

¶12

KUMARI SANDYASHREE,

¶13

D/O LATE MANJUNATH OMAYYA KHARVI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT OM SHIVAM NILAYA, MAVINKURVE HOUSE, BHATKAL TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 581 320.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. HAREESH T BHANDARY (NOC)., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22431 MFA No. 7596 of 2019

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI. VINITH KUMAR K.N., S/O. LATE NEELAYYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT CHEEMULLU HOUSE, KUTKUNJA POST & VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶20

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE PRABHU BUILDING, OPP. ARUNA TALKIES MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.473/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K, MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K, AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, PUTTUR D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22431 MFA No. 7596 of 2019

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 23.04.2019 passed in M.V.C.473/2018 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, Additional M.A.C.T, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru sitting at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada (for short 'the Tribunal').

¶30

Heard Sri.Hareesh T.Bhandary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.S.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶31

This appeal is filed by the claimants mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at ₹18,240/- which would be 50% of the gross salary of the deceased. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal has assigned the reasons in Paragraph 13 by considering the pay slip of November, 2017 and after deducting the income tax and professional tax, the

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22431 MFA No. 7596 of 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Tribunal has come to conclusion that the salary drawn by the deceased was ₹36,482/- per month and out of the said amount, 50% was considered as income as he would have been earned after his retirement as a monthly pension. It is to be noticed that, at the time of accident and death,

¶35

the deceased was aged about 59 years approximately 8 months, which is evident from the material placed before the Tribunal.

¶36

Admittedly the deceased were working in Fisheries Corporation as on the date of accident and the claimants have produced substantial evidence to prove the income of

¶37

the deceased. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed gross error in considering 50% of the salary of the deceased for the purpose of determination of compensation. The salary of the deceased is required to be considered at `35,480/- per month and required to add 10% to under the head of 'loss of future prospects' by applying '9' as multiplier and deducting 1/3^rd

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22431 MFA No. 7596 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

towards personal and living expenses. Furthermore, I am

¶41

also of the view that the compensation awarded under

¶42

other heads is also required to be modified accordingly.

¶43

Hence, the compensation is re-determined as under;

¶44

Heads	Amount in rupees
Loss of dependency (`35,480 + 10% x 12 x 9 - 1/3)	28,10,016.00
Medical expenses	12,983.00
Loss of consortium (`40,000/-<br>each<br>with<br>10%<br>escalation)=` 44,000/-x3	1,32,000.00
Loss of estate`15,000/- (with escalation of 10%)	16,500.00
Expenses towards	16,500.00
transportation of dead body and funeral (with escalation of 10%)
TOTAL	29,87,999.00

¶45

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

¶46

total compensation of **29,87,999/-** as against 16,90,123/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:22431 MFA No. 7596 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶53

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.473/2018 is modified to an extent that the appellants-claimants would be entitled

¶54

to total compensation of ` 29,87,999/- as

¶55

against ` 16,90,123/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

(iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶57

(iv) The respondent-Insurance Company shall

¶58

deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within

¶59

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.