Smt. Narasamma Vs the Managing Director

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 14.07.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5600/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-9, 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 14.07.2025 passed in MVC No.5600/2023 by the Court of Small Causes Judge and ACJM and MACT, Bangalore. One Srikantappa, aged about 49 years, met with an accident on 27.06.2023 and died subsequently. His wife and children filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.19,95,348/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶27

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed seeking enhancement in which it is contended that Srikantappa was working as a site supervisor under one Anil Kumar L., who is a class 1 PWD Contractor for last 6 years and was earning

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17932 MFA No. 7701 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Rs.30,000/- per month. Exhibit P18 is the salary certificate issued by P.W.2- Anil Kumar and Exhibit P19 is the contractor license of PW2. But the Tribunal without considering the same has taken his notional income of Rs.16,000/- per month which is on the lower side. It is stated that the Tribunal has also taken the future prospects as 10%. Srikantappa was born on 08.07.1973 as per Exhibit P17 transfer certificate issued by school authority and met with an accident on 27.06.2023, and thus, he was aged 49 years. But the Tribunal, instead of taking 25% towards future prospects, has taken 10%. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent stated that the petitioner examined PW2 who issued Exhibit P18, but he has not filed any bank statement to prove the income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken his notional income and it needs no inference. So also, his age was rightly considered by the Tribunal as 50 years and it is to be confirmed.

¶32

It is stated that Srikantappa was working as a site supervisor and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimants examined PW2, an employer. Exhibit P19 is the contractor

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:17932 MFA No. 7701 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

license issued in favour of PW2. PW2 issued Exhibit P18. He stated that Srikantappa was working with him from past 6 years and he was paying salary of Rs.30,000/-. He has not filed any bank statement and he admitted, in the cross-examination, that he never issued any cheque towards the salary. However, the above oral and documentary evidence clearly shows that Srikantappa was working as a site supervisor with PW2 and therefore, this court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.20,000/per month instead of notional income of Rs.16,000/-.

¶37

As per the transfer certificate, Srikantappa was born on 08.07.1973 and the same date of birth is mentioned in the Aadhar card. So he met with an accident on 27.06.2023 and thus, he was aged 49 years 11 months 19 days. Therefore, he is entitled for multiplier of 13 for the age group of 46 to 50 years. As he was aged 49 years, he is entitled for future prospects at rate of 25% instead of 10%, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ and one

¶38

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17932 MFA No. 7701 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

third is deducted towards personal expenses as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation² . Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.26,00,000/- (20,000 + 25% - 1/3^rd x 12 x 13).

¶42

Further, as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others³ , and in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others⁴ , the first petitioner is entitled for Rs.48,000/towards spousal consortium, and second and third petitioners are also entitled for Rs.48,000/- towards parental consortium by each of them and they are also entitled for Rs.36,000/- towards the conventional heads as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

¶43