Smt Ramanjanamma Vs Smt R Manjula

THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY P.B. NO.16, S.B. L.T. BUILDING, POLYTECHNIC ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. KISHORE K.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.01.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.35/14 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, CHIKKABALLAPUR, 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:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:27223 MFA No. 9367 of 2015

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

¶34

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 07.04.2015 passed in MVC.No.35/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur for enhancement of the compensation.

¶35

The appellants' counsel report was ready on 03.06.2026 and as learned counsel for respondent No.2 had not filed the vakalath, he was directed to file the same. But till today, he has not filed the vakalath and has not represented in the Court. As the matter pertains to the year 2015, heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants.

¶36

The brief facts of the case are that, one Sri.Venkataravanappa S/o Chinnappaiah met with a road traffic accident on 13.09.2008 and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. His wife, children and parents filed a claim petition

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27223 MFA No. 9367 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.7,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal, contending mainly that consortium has not been awarded to the other claimants and that interest is to be granted at the rate of 9% p.a.,

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount granted by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of dependency' is not in dispute. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal regarding granting of amount Rs.7,02,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'.

¶41

The claimants are petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased; petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the sons of the deceased and petitioner Nos.4 and 5, parents of the deceased. Petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27223 MFA No. 9367 of 2015

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. The claimants are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under Conventional heads.

¶45

Thus, the compensation awarded by this Court is as

¶46

below:

¶47

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	7,02,000/-
2	Towards spousal consortium to petitioner No.1	40,000/-
3	Towards parental consortium to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (Rs.40,000/- x 2)	80,000/-
4	Towards filial consortium To petitioner Nos.4 and 5 (Rs.40,000/- x 2)	80,000/-
5	Towards conventional heads	30,000/-
	Total	9,32,000/-

¶48

Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced

¶49

from Rs.7,82,000/- to Rs.9,32,000/- .

¶50

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27223 MFA No. 9367 of 2015

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶55

ii. The judgment and award dated 07.04.2015 passed in MVC.No.35/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur, is modified.

¶56

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,32,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.7,82,000/- granted by the tribunal.

¶57

iv. Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order.

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27223 MFA No. 9367 of 2015

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

v. On such deposit, petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the said amount.

¶61

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶62

SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Smt Ramanjanamma v. Smt R Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ramanjanamma v. Smt R Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ningamaraiah Vs Sri. Srikantaiah

Enock Braganz Vs Ganesh K N

Smt. Lakshminarasamma Vs Sri Arasaiah

Sri.Basavaraju Vs Sri.Kumarswamy M S

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mohammed Riaz

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mohammed Hanief