Karnataka High Court
Sri Naveen Lakshmipathy Tekka vs Cholamandalam Ms on 25 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
MFA No. 3695 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 5268 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3695 OF 2023 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5268 OF 2023 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.3695/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAVEEN LAKSHMIPATHY TEKKA
S/O. LAKSHMIPATHY T. K.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
2. KUM. SHUBHI N.
D/O. NAVEEN LAKSHMIPATHY TEKKA
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA FATHER: SRI NAVEEN LAKSHMIPATHY TEKKA
NAGARATHNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. LAKSHMIPATHY T. K.
S/O. LATE KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.475, 6TH MAIN
3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 079.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H. T., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
MFA No. 3695 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 5268 of 2023
AND:
1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS
MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
UNIT #04, 9TH FLOOR(LEVEL-06),
'GOLDEN HEIGHTS' COMPLEX
59TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
RAJAJINAGAR 4TH 'M' BLOCK
BENGALURU-560 010.
2. APARNA ENTERPRISES LTD.
SY. NO.99/2 KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 001.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 26/7/2023
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 26/7/2023, NOTICE TO R-2
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2023 PASSED
IN MVC NO.760/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY
(SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.5268/2023:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD.
UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR
'GOLDEN HEIGHTS' COMPLEX
59TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
4TH 'M' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
MFA No. 3695 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 5268 of 2023
AND:
1. NAVEEN LAKSMIPATHY TEKKA
S/O. LAKSMIPATHY T. K.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
2. KUM. SHUBHI N.
D/O. NAVEEN LAKSMIPATHY TEKKA
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS
SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER N/G AND FATHER
SRI NAVEEN LAKSHMIPATHY TEKKA.
3. LAKSHMIPATHY T. K.
S/O. LATE KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3
R/AT NO. 475, 6TH MAIN
3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 079.
4. APARNA ENERPRISES LTD.
SY.NO. 99/2, KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALAHOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 001
(EXPARTE)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H. T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14/08/2024, NOTICE TO R-4 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2023
PASSED IN MVC NO.760/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU CITY, (SCCH-4), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.70,13,300/- WITH INTEREST AT
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
MFA No. 3695 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 5268 of 2023
THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
18.09.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T., J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
These appeals arise out of the award dated 06.03.2023 in
MVC No.760/2020 passed by the XVIII Additional Small Causes
Judge and Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru.
MFA No.3695/2023 is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
MFA No.5268/2023 is filed by the insurer of the offending
vehicle, questioning the negligence and quantum of
compensation awarded.
The appellants in MFA No.3695/2023 are claimant Nos.1,
2 and 3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said appeal were
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.760/2020. For the purpose
of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according
to their ranks before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
2. Claimant No.1 is husband and claimant No.2 is minor
daughter of deceased Khushboo Malik, aged one year as on the
date of filing the claim petition. Claimant No.3 is the father of
claimant No.1.
3. On 14.12.2019, at about 8.55 p.m., claimant No.1 and
Khushboo Malik were proceeding on motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-02-JS-1398. Claimant No.1 was rider and
Khusboo Malik was pillion rider. When they were proceeding on
Bengaluru Bellary road (Hebbala Fly over) from Manyatha Tech
park towards Basaveshwaranagar, at that time, the driver of
Truck bearing registration No. KA-01-AD-2073 came from hind
side and dashed to the motor cycle. Due to the said impact,
Khushboo Malik and claimant No.1 fell down, claimant No.1
sustained simple injuries. Khushboo Malik suffered severe
injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to
Aster CMI hospital, Hebbala and she was declared brought
dead. Her dead body was shifted to MSR Hospital for post
mortem examination.
4. On the basis of complaint of claimant No.1 as per
Ex-P1, SHO of Hebbala Traffic police registered FIR in
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
Cr.No.152/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 279
and 304A of IPC. On investigation, the police filed charge sheet
as per Ex.P3 against the driver of the Truck, for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. At the relevant
time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and
insurer respectively of the said Truck.
5. Claimants filed MVC No.760/2020 under Section 166 of
the MV Act claiming compensation of two crores alleging that
the accident and consequential death of Khushboo Malik
occurred due to actionable negligence of the driver of the Truck
and they were dependent on her income. They claimed that
respondent No.1 being the owner of offending vehicle and
respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to pay the
compensation.
6. Respondent No.2, the insurer contested the matter
denying the occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the
offending vehicle in the accident, age, occupation, income of
the deceased and dependency of the claimants on the
deceased. Respondent No.2-Insurer denied its liability to
indemnify the damages. The insurer contended that claimant
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
No.1 was solely responsible for the accident due to his
negligence.
7. The Tribunal relying on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and
Exs.P1 to P26 and evidence of RW.1 held that, claimants were
dependant on the deceased. The Tribunal notionally considered
the income of the deceased at Rs.72,750/- per month and
added 40% to the same by way of future prospectus and
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The
Tribunal applied '17' multiplier and awarded compensation of
Rs.98,94,000/- under the head of 'loss of dependency'.
8. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of
Rs.1,40,26,600/- under different heads as per the table below:
Sl.No. Particulars Compensation
awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 98,94,000
2. Loss of future prospectus 39,57,600
3. Loss of consortium 80,000
4. Loss of love and affection 75,000
5. Funeral expenses 15,000
6. Transportation of dead body 5,000
TOTAL 1,40,26,600/-
The Tribunal further held that respondent No.2-Insurer is
liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal fixed
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
50% contributory negligence on the driver of Truck and 50% on
the rider of motor cycle. Accordingly, the Tribunal observed
that, the claimants are entitled for compensation to the
quantum of 50% which comes to
(Rs.1,40,26,600/- - Rs.70,13,300/-) =Rs.70,13,300/- with
interest at 6% per annum.
Submissions of Sri H.T. Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel
for claimants:
9. Tribunal failed to appreciate Ex-P4 sketch and Ex-P5
spot mahazar. The said spot mahazar and sketch, show that
the driver of the Truck was rash and negligent in high speed hit
the motor cycle of claimant No.1 from backside and caused the
death of victim. There was no contributory negligence on the
part of claimant No.1. But, the Tribunal wrongly came to the
conclusion that the rider of the motor cycle viz., claimant No.1
had contributed 50% negligence in the said accident. The
Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the driver of the
Truck and no charge sheet was filed against the rider of the
motor cycle imputing contributing negligence. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and award is without application of mind.
Insurer failed to prove 50% contributory negligence on the part
of claimant No.1 by adducing any evidence. Finding of Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
on the issue negligence on the part of the rider of the motor
cycle is erroneous. Deceased Khushboo Malik had completed
her B.Tech and B.Ed, working as a Teacher at National Public
School and drawing a salary of Rs.45,000/-. She was also
working as Insurance agent and drawing a salary of
Rs.1,05,000/- per month. PW.3, the Administrative Officer of
National Public School, deposed that the deceased was drawing
a salary of Rs.36,500/- per month. The deceased was highly
qualified, engaged in various occupations yielding income.
Without appreciating such fact and evidence on record, Tribunal
considered her income as Rs.72,750/- only, which is erroneous.
The compensation awarded on other heads is very low.
Compensation as claimed be awarded.
Submissions of Sri. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for
Insurance company:
10. Tribunal committed error in fixing 50% negligence
against the driver of the Truck as claimant No.1 was solely
responsible for the alleged accident. As per Ex-P5 sketch and
police records, it is the rider of the motor cycle, who entered
the main road without observing the vehicles thereby caused
accident. Tribunal ought to have fixed entire negligence on the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
rider of the motor cycle. Tribunal committed error in taking the
income of the deceased at Rs.72,750/- per month without there
being any cogent and convincing evidence. The claimants have
contended that the victim was working as a Teacher at National
Public School and was earning Rs.36,500/- per month. But,
during the course of examination of PW-3-Administrative
Officer of National Public School, he has admitted that deceased
Khushboo Malik had left the job prior to the accident. PW.4,
who is HR Administrative Officer, Blitz Spark Business
Outsource Private Limited, has admitted in the cross
examination that he is a Sales Executive and not HR Admin.
Further, the pay slip pertaining to deceased Khushboo Malik
produced by PW.1 does not reflect ESI, PF, PAN number,
Income Tax employment number, date of appointment,
professional tax and Account number etc. Such pay slip has
been concocted for the purpose of higher compensation.
Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.72,750/- and the same needs interference of
this Court. The Tribunal committed error in granting interest on
future prospects of 40%. Claimants are not entitled for any
interest on the future prospects amount.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
11. On hearing submissions of both side and on perusal
of the material on record, the following questions arise for our
consideration:
(1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the
accident between truck bearing No.KA-01-AD-
2073 and motor cycle bearing No.KA-02-JS-
1398 occurred due to contributory negligence of
the driver and rider of the vehicles, is
sustainable?
(2) Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the claimants is just one?
ANALYSIS
12. The initial burden of proving the fact, that on
14.12.2019 at 8:55 p.m., when claimant No.1 and victim were
proceeding on Bengaluru-Ballary Road, Hebbal Flyover, the
driver of the Truck due to his actionable negligence hit the
motorcycle and caused death of the victim, is on the claimants.
13. To discharge the said burden, PW.1 i.e., claimant
No.1, the husband of deceased got examined himself as PW.1.
In his evidence, he has reiterated the contents of claim
petition. He relied on Exs.P1 to P7 i.e., copies of complaint,
FIR, charge sheet, spot mahazar with sketch, Inquest report
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
and post mortem report respectively. Under Ex.P3 charge
sheet, the driver of the Truck was charge sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. As
per Ex-P4 spot mahazar, the Truck bearing registration
No.KA-01-AD-2073 hit the motor cycle from hind side. Exs.P.3
to P6 fortify the evidence of PW.1 that the Truck was involved
in the accident and that deceased Khusbhoo Malik was a pillion
rider in the said motor cycle, who succumbed due to the road
traffic accident. As per the opinion of the Doctor mentioned in
Ex.P7-PM report, the cause of death of deceased Khushboo
Malik was due to crush injury to the head and chest. PW.1 was
cross examined, but, nothing more was disputed with regard to
death of Khushboo Malik in the road traffic accident. The
respondents have not challenged the contents of the charge
sheet.
14. Per-contra, RW.1-Deputy Manager-Claims Legal,
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited
deposed that claimant No.1 who was rider of the motor cycle
with pillion rider Khushboo Malik himself rode the said motor
cycle in rash and negligent manner, suddenly entered Bellary
main road (Hebbala flyover) and dashed against the Truck,
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
which was proceeding slowly, he was solely responsible for
accident. As per IMV report-Ex.P8, the front right side indicator
of motor cycle was damaged and scratch mark was found on
the right side crash guard.
15. Ex.P4, the sketch shows that the spot of the accident
was on extreme left side of the road. As per the case of the
prosecution, the Truck was coming from Airport road and the
motor cycle of claimant No.1 was coming from Manyatha Tech
Park. As per the complaint, sketch and spot mahazar, there
was sufficient space for movement of vehicles on the left side
of the road. The motor cycle was on extreme left side of the
road. The driver of the Truck ought to have proceeded in his
lane, but, he took his Truck towards extreme left side as can be
seen in the sketch. As per Ex.P8-IMV report, there is no
damage caused to the offending vehicle i.e., Truck bearing
registration No.KA-01-AD-2073. It shows that claimant No.1
rider of motor cycle had not dashed to the Truck. But perusal of
oral and documentary evidence on record shows that the driver
of the truck came from hindside and dashed against the
deceased who was a pillion rider. The Tribunal did not discuss
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
how claimant No.1/rider of the motor cycle contributed
negligence to the accident.
16. In the light of above evidence, the Tribunal was not
justified in holding that claimant No.1 has contributed 50%
negligence in the occurrence of the accident. Hence, fastening
of 50% contributory negligence to the rider of the motor cycle
is liable to be set-aside.
17. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, as
per the claimants, prior to the accident, the deceased was an
Engineer, she was a Teacher at National Public School and she
was drawing a salary of Rs.45,000/- and also she was working
as an Insurance agent at United India Insurance Company and
working as Business Development Associate at Blitz Spark
Business Outsources Private Limited and as such she was
drawing income of an average sum of Rs.1,05,000/- per month.
In order to substantiate the contention of the claimants,
claimant No.1 relied upon appointment letter and salary slips
said to be issued by the said employers, commission bills
receipts, which were marked at Exs.P9 to 15, 21 and 22.
Claimants got examined PW.2 Vaisakh Mohan, the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
Administrative Officer, United India Insurance company
Limited, Bengaluru. He has stated that victim Khusuboo Malik
was appointed as Insurance agent in their Company during the
year 2019 and she was receiving commission of Rs.8,000/- per
month. Further, the claimants also examined PW.3 Kiran
Kumar, pay role Admin Officer, National Public School, who said
to have issued Ex.P25-Authorization Letter. PW.3 has stated
that victim was working as a PRT in their Institution- National
Public School and she was working as TGT from 4th June 2014
to 31st March 2018 and she was getting salary of Rs.36,500/-
per month. In the cross examination, PW.3 admitted that the
victim had left the job prior to the accident. Therefore, the
evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and Exs.P24 and P25 are not helpful to
the claimants to prove her income as on the date of her death.
18. The claimants examined PW.4-Shiva Kumar, the HR
Admin Officer, Blitz Spark Business Outsource Private Limited,
Bengaluru as PW.4, who has issued Ex.P26 Authorization letter.
PW.4 has stated that the deceased was working as Business
Development Associate at Blitz Spark Business Outsource
Private Limited, Bengaluru and she was working till her death
and was drawing salary of Rs.85,270/- per month.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
19. PW.4 relied upon three pay slips of victim Khushboo
Malik, which are marked under Ex.P13. As per Ex.P13, for the
month of September 2019, the salary of victim Khushboo Malik
was Rs.57,760/-, as per the pay slip for the month of October
2019, salary of victim was Rs.75,820/- and as per the pay slip
for the month of November 2019, salary of victim was
Rs.85,270/-. When the victim was working as a Business
Development Associate at Blitz Spark Business Outsources
Private Limited, for full time, it is not known as to how she
could work as Insurance Agent and School Teacher also
simultaneously. The trial Court has taken into consideration
three average incomes of the victim from Blitz Spark Company
at Rs.72,750/- per month, which exclude professional tax of
Rs.200/- and finally assessed income of the victim at
Rs.72,750/- per month.
20. The claimants have furnished copy of Bank statement
from the years 2014 to 2020 of the victim. The claimants also
furnished copy of the Income Tax return acknowledgment for
the year 2018-19. As per the Income Tax return, the gross
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
total income of the victim was Rs.4,23,900/- - Rs.2,500/- tax
payable on total income, thus, it comes to Rs.4,21,400/-.
21. As per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, 40% of the income is to be added towards 'loss of future
prospectus in life' for the age group below 30 years and hence,
the trial court has taken 40% of notional income towards future
prospectus of the deceased, which is in accordance with the
ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's case. Claimant No.3/Father-
in-law cannot be called as dependant as his earning son
claimant No.1 is alive. For two dependants of the deceased,
1/3rd of personal income would be deducted towards her
personal and living expenses. The deceased was aged 30 years
at the time of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate
multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in
AIR 2009 SC 3104 is '17'. As per Pranay Sethi's case, 40% of
the income of the deceased is to be added towards future
prospects, which comes to Rs.5,89,960/- (Rs.4,21,400/- +
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
40%=Rs.1,68,560/-). 1/3rd of income of the deceased for her
'personal expenses', comes to (Rs.5,89,960 X 1/3rd)
Rs.1,96,653/-. After deduction, the amount to be contributed to
her family would be Rs.3,93,307/- per annum and the
multiplier applicable to her age group is '17'. Therefore, 'loss of
dependency' works out to Rs.66,86,219/- (3,93,307 X 17).
22. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu
Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18
SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi's case, claimants No.1 and 2 are
entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of consortium,
with 10% escalation(10% once in three years) which comes to
Rs.88,000/-(Rs.44,000 x 2).
23. In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's case,
the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/- under the
head 'Funeral expenses' and Rs.16,500/- under the head
'Transportation of the dead body'.
24. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that as on
the date of the accident, deceased Khushboo Malik was
23 weeks pregnant and due to the impact of the accident,
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
deceased Khushboo Malik and her foetus died, but, the tribunal
has not awarded any compensation in this regard. Hence, the
learned counsel prayed to grant suitable compensation on that
head.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivakumar
and Ors. v. Gainda Lal and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC
5367 has awarded a compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh towards
'loss of foetus'.
26. In view of the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra
and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of
the opinion that claimant No.1 is also entitled for compensation
of Rs.1.00 lakh towards 'loss of foetus'.
27. The learned counsel for the Insurance company
contended that the claimants are not entitled for any interest
towards 'loss of future prospectus'. Admittedly, the amount
under the head 'loss of future prospectus' is yet to be received.
Award of compensation is one time procedure. If the deceased
would have been alive, she would have earned much more
amount on account of her higher position and global
opportunities.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
28. In view of the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of The Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited v. Suprith S. @ Supreeth, dead by his
LRs (MFA No.511/2020 c.w MFA.Crob.No.40/2022 dated
01.08.2024) reported in MANU/KA/2654/2024, we are of the
view that the Insurance company is liable to pay the awarded
amount including the amount awarded under the head future
prospects together with banking rate of interest which is
prevalent during relevant time and the Insurance company
cannot escape from its liability to pay interest on the future
prospectus.
29. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation
as under:-
HEADS Rs.
Loss of dependency 66,86,219.00
Loss of consortium 88,000.00
Funeral expenses 16,500.00
Transportation of dead body 16,500.00
Loss of foetus 1,00,000.00
TOTAL 69,07,219.00
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 70,13,300.00
Reduced compensation -1,06,081.00
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
30. Hence, the appeal i.e., MFA No.3695/2023 (MVC
No.760/2020) filed by the claimants deserves to be allowed-in-
part. Finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence
on the part of claimant No.1 is liable to be set aside. As such,
the Insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation
to the claimants. The Tribunal held that claimant Nos.1 to 3 are
entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 50:40:10. Infact
claimant No.2 Kum. Shubi is a minor girl and claimant No.1 is
husband of deceased. Claimant No.3 is father-in-law of the
deceased. Since claimant No.3-father-in-law is not legal heir of
the deceased, it is only husband and daughter, who are entitled
for entire compensation. Claimant No.1 is entitled for
compensation at the ratio of 40% and claimant No.2- minor is
entitled for compensation at the ratio of 60% respectively. To
that extent, the entitlement of share is modified.
Accordingly, we pass the following;
ORDER
1. MFA No.3695/2023 and MFA No.5268/2023 are
partly allowed.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
2. The judgment and award dated 06.03.2023 passed
by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, XVIII
Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in
MVC.No.760/2020 is modified to the extent stated
herein above.
3. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at
Rs.70,13,300/- is reduced to Rs.69,07,219/-.
4. The Insurance company shall deposit the entire
compensation inclusive of the amount already
deposited with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization. The said amount shall be
deposited within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
5. In the impugned award so far it relates to
apportionment of compensation amongst the
claimants and the investment is maintained.
6. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company
before this Court, if any, be transmitted to the
Tribunal within three weeks.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43205-DB
7. Draw the modified award accordingly.
8. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Tribunal, along with its records.
9. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN
