Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mallaiah vs The Branch Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 3370 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3370 Kant
Judgement Date : 16 June, 2023

Karnataka High Court
Mallaiah vs The Branch Manager on 16 June, 2023
Bench: T G Gowda
                                        MFA.NO.5994/2017
                             1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALNO.5994 of 2017(MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1. MALLAIAH S/O.GUDEBASABA
   AGED ABOUT58 YEARS.

2. BASAVARAJU M. S/O.MALLAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

  BOTH ARE R/O. BACHANAHALLI
  VILLAGE, MALLAVALLI TALUK
  MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.            ...APPELLANTS

(BY SMT.B.L.ASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
   UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LT.
   NO.1119/B, ASHOKNAGARA
   MANDYA-571 401.

2. SHIVAMALLU N. S/O.NAGAIAH
   R/O.NO.700, SC STREET
   KOLLEGALA TALUK
   CHAMARAJANAGARA
   DISTRICT-571 440.               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1
 R2 SERVED)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 27.01.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.351/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MALAVALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
                                          MFA.NO.5994/2017
                           2

CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND             SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

     THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   02.06.2023 AND COMING  ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' in short), is filed by the

petitioners against the judgment and award dated

27.01.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.351/2016 by the

Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. at Malavalli ('the

Tribunal' in short).

2. Appellants herein were the petitioners and

respondent No.1 herein was respondent No.2 and

respondent No.2 was respondent No.1 before the

Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the

parties will be referred to as per their status before

the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts as pleaded by the petitioners is

that, one Mahadevaswamy ('the deceased' in short) MFA.NO.5994/2017

was the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of

petitioner No.2. On 31.12.2015, the deceased was

riding the motor cycle bearing No.KA-10/Q-5660 as a

pillion rider raided by one Vijendrakumar from

Bangalore to their village Kunagalli on Malavalli-

Kollegala Road. At about 7.00 p.m., near Rottikatte

besides the land of one Balu, a stray dog came across

the motor cycle, due to which, they fell down and the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed

at the spot itself. Hence, the petitioners have

approached the Tribunal under Section 163A of the

Act on the grounds that the deceased was aged 29

years, working in a private firm earning Rs.3,500/-

per month and for grant of Rs.7,50,000/- as

compensation. The claim was opposed by the

respondents.

4. Before the Tribunal, father of the deceased

was examined himself as PW-1 and 7 documents

came to be marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the MFA.NO.5994/2017

2nd respondent, its officer was examined as RW-1 and

one document came to be marked as Ex.R1. By the

impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs.1,94,000/- with interest @ 8%

per annum. Seeking enhancement of compensation,

the petitioners have filed this appeal on various

heads.

5. I have heard the arguments of Smt.B.L.Asha,

learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.S.V.Hegde

Mulkhand, learned counsel for respondent

No.1/insurer. Respondent No.2 is served and

unrepresented.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioners that the deceased was a bachelor,

aged 29 years, working in a private firm earning

Rs.3,500/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed the

income at Rs.3,000/-, instead of taking the age of the

deceased, it has taken the age of the father at 57 and MFA.NO.5994/2017

applied the multiplier of '8' and sought for

enhancement of compensation.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurer

has contended that the deceased was a bachelor and

there is no proof of income, having regard to the

accident of the year 2015, the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the income at Rs.3,000/-, correctly applied

the multiplier and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides and also perused

the materials on record.

9. There is no dispute as to the accident, cause

of accident, injuries sustained by the deceased,

treatment provided and death occurred on account of

the accidental injuries. As the records point out, the

deceased was aged 29 years on the date of accident

and the multiplier applicable is '18'. The Tribunal

ought to have taken the income of Rs.40,000/- per

annum. Under the provisions of Section 163-A of the MFA.NO.5994/2017

Act, the deduction towards personal expenses of a

bachelor shall not be more than 1/3rd, as laid down in

the judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. -vs-

Chhabirani Samanth and Another 1, which is

referred to by the Tribunal. If 1/3rd is excluded

towards personal expenses, the income comes to

Rs.26,667/-. The Tribunal is not justified in adopting

multiplier on the basis of age of father instead of the

deceased. Hence, having regard to the age of the

deceased at 29 years, the applicable multiplier is 18.

If it is multiplied by '18', it comes to Rs.4,80,000/-.

Towards funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- and loss of

estate at Rs.2,500/- is added, it comes to

Rs.4,84,500/- as against Rs.1,94,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal, thereby the petitioners are entitled to

enhanced compensation of Rs.2,90,500/-, it is just

and adequate compensation in the facts and

circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeal

deserves to be allowed.

2015 ACJ 1721 MFA.NO.5994/2017

In the result, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment is modified

accordingly.

(iii) The appellants/petitioners would be entitled

for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,90,500/-

along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

on the enhanced compensation from the date of

petition till its realization.

(iv) The first respondent/insurer is directed to

satisfy the award within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this judgment.

(v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be

transmitted to the Tribunal along with records

forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE KNM/-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter