Smt Sunithamma Vs Sri Premkumar C

APPELLANTS ARE PRESENTLY R/A C/O RAJANAYKA, S/O HEMLANAYAKA TEACHER, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL BHOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573226.

¶23

&APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. H J ANANDA, ADV.)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI PREMKUMAR C S/O CHELLIAH NADAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NO.40-13 VANDAVILAI VILLAGE ETHAMOJI POST AGASTHIPURAM TALUK KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMILNADU-629501.

¶27

MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.1/5 2^ND FLOOR, ATHISAMI ARCADE PWD ROAD, NAGARAKOYIL KANYAKUMARI TAMILNADU-629001.

¶28

REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VENKATESHWARA BUILDING GANDHI CIRCLE, B M ROAD HASSAN-573201.

¶29

&RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.708/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶38

The appellants/claimants are before this Court under

¶39

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 81988 Act9) not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 21.10.2023 in MVC.No.708/2022 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan (for short, 8the Tribunal9) and pray for enhancement of compensation.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act claiming compensation for the accidental death of Sri.Sanjeevanayak @ Snajeevappa, husband of first claimant in a road traffic accident that took place on 23.04.2021 involving car bearing registration No.TN-74-AW-6062, while the deceased was crossing the road near Vimalalaya Hospital, Hebbagodiya, Bangalore-Hosur Road, NH-7. It is stated that the deceased was working as a Coolie at Fruit Market and was also doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.40,000/p.m. It is stated that the deceased was aged 43 years. The claimants stated that they were totally dependent on the income of the deceased.

¶44

On issuance of notice, both respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 stated that due to the negligence of the deceased, accident took place and that the deceased was aged more than 65 years at the time of accident. As the insurance

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

policy was in operation, second respondent is liable to pay compensation, if any.

¶49

The second respondent-Insurance company also

¶50

filed its objections denying the claim petition averments. Further, it is stated that compensation claimed is higher, excessive and exorbitant. It is also contended that the driver of the offending car was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. However, it admitted the policy in respect of the offending car.

¶51

The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1,

¶52

apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. No evidence was led and no documents were marked on behalf of the

¶53

respondents.

¶54

The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.18,34,000/- on the following heads:

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

	HEAD
A	Monthly income	Rs.14,000-00
B	Future Prospectus	--
C	1/4 deduction towards personal expenses	Rs.3,500-00
D	Total dependency (A-C)	Rs.14,000-3,500 = Rs.10,500/-
E	Age multiplier	14
F	Compensation (D x 12 X E) (Rs.10,500/-x 12 x 14)	Rs.17,64,000-00
G	CONVENTIONAL HEADS
H	A) Loss of consortium	Rs.40,000-00
I	B) Loss of estate	Rs.15,000-00
J	C) Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000-00
	TOTAL	Rs.18,34,000-00

¶59

While awarding the above compensation, the

¶60

Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m., deducted ¼ towards personal expenses of the deceased and further awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/towards loss of consortium and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- and towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-. The claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Heard learned counsel Sri.H.J.Ananda for

¶65

appellants/claimants and learned counsel Sri.Ravish Benni for respondent-insurance company. Perused the entire material on record.

¶66

Learned counsel Sri.H.J.Ananda for the

¶67

claimants would contend that the Tribunal failed to assess the notional income of the deceased properly and he submits that in terms of the income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m., as against Rs.14,000/p.m., assessed by the Tribunal. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal erred in not adding any future income while awarding the above compensation. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal also failed to award any compensation to the children and parents of the deceased who are also entitled for consortium at Rs.40,000/- each with 10% enhancement. Thus, he would

¶68

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

pray for enhancement of the compensation by modifying the award under challenge.

¶71

Learned counsel Sri.Ravish Benni for

¶72

respondent-insurance company would submit that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which requires no interference. Learned counsel would further submit that no material is placed on record to establish the income. As such, the Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m., and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶73

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to,

¶74

Whether the appellants/claimants would be entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶75

Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons:

¶76

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

The accident that took place on 23.04.2021 involving car bearing registration No.TN-74-AW-6062 and the death of Sri.Sanjeevanaika, husband of first claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The respondent-insurance company has not filed any appeal. The claimants are before this Court claiming enhancement of compensation.

¶79

The Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m. The accident has taken place in the year 2021. For the year 2021, the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is Rs.15,000/-p.m. As such, income of the deceased is re-assessed at Rs.15,000/- p.m., in terms of the income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as against Rs.14,000/- p.m., assessed by the Tribunal.

¶80

The deceased was aged about 43 years and the Tribunal has failed to award any future prospects on the assessed income. In terms of the NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶81

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI & OTHERS¹ since the

¶84

deceased was aged 43 years, claimants would be entitled for future prospects at 25% of the assessed income. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the modified compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under: Rs.(15000+15000x25%)X12X14X3/4= Rs.23,62,500/-.

¶85

The Tribunal has rightly deducted ¼, taking note of six dependants of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal failed to award consortium to the parents and children of the deceased in terms of the decision of the Hon9ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. NANU RAM & OTHERS² , Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for consortium at Rs.40,000/- and 10% of enhancement. The Tribunal also failed to award 10% enhanced compensation on the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, which

¶86

the claimants would be entitled.

¶87

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶88

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶89

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the

¶92

following modified compensation:

¶93

Sl.No.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs. 23,62,500/-
2.	Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 each)	Rs. 2,64,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	Rs. 16,500/-
4.	Funeral expenses and transportation of body	Rs. 16,500/-
	TOTAL	Rs.26,59,500/-

¶94

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a total

¶95

compensation of Rs.26,59,500/- as against Rs.18,34,000/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

¶96

In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶97

ORDER

¶98

a) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶99

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.26,59,500/as against Rs.18,34,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶100

12 -

¶101

NC: 2026:KHC:1852-DB MFA No. 952 of 2024

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

c) The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

¶104

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶105

e) Apportionment, deposit & disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal.

¶106

f) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with Trial Court Records.

¶107

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶108

SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶109

SD/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶110

NC CT:bms

Smt Sunithamma v. Sri Premkumar C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunithamma v. Sri Premkumar C

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

Smt. Leelavathi T Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri. J.R Bhaskar

Smt. Preethi. a. Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

The Joint Commercial Tax Commissioner Vs M/S. Aj Enterprises

Sri Ravish M M Vs Arun Kumar M S

State of Karnataka Vs M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.