Karnataka High Court
Smt Swetha vs Sri Manjunath T K on 5 February, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5294
MFA No. 4561 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MFA NO. 4561 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SWETHA
W/O LATE GANGADHAR K,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2. RAGHAV M G,
S/O LATE GANGADHAR K,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN BY MOTHER
SMT. SHWETHA
3. SRI KRISHNAPPA,
S/O MAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
ALL ARE OLD RESIDENTS OF
Digitally signed
by MARANAGERE, TIPTUR TALUK,
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
COURT NOW RESIDENTS OF
KARNATAKA
BHAGYANAGARA,
KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 577 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M. B. RYAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MANJUNATH T K,
S/O LATE T K KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5294
MFA No. 4561 of 2020
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.58,
GARDEN HOUSE,
BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GURUGADAHALLI POST,
TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
2. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ISSUED OFFICE AT HASSAN.
SERVICE ADDRESS:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H. S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.10.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.1229/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5294
MFA No. 4561 of 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants aggrieved by
the inadequate compensation awarded by the I Additional
District Judge and MACT at Tumkur.
2. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants / Claimants that the tribunal has
awarded inadequate and meager compensation and has not
awarded suitable income for computation of compensation, so
also under the Head of Consortium suitable compensation is not
awarded and hence, they seek to allow the appeal and
consequently enhance the compensation.
2.1 The tribunal on consideration of the materials
placed before it, both oral and documentary, has awarded total
compensation of Rs.13,29,400/- along with interest at 6% P.A.
and directed the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company to pay
the compensation amount.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondent-Insurance Company contends that there is no
error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the
tribunal and the same does not call for interference. The
NC: 2025:KHC:5294
tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation by
adopting the correct income and multiplier. On these
grounds, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
4. The occurrence of accident, involvement of the
vehicle and death having occurred due to the road traffic
accident is proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to
P17. The Insurance company has not challenged the criminal
prosecution. Hence, negligence is rightly attributed against the
driver of the offending vehicle which is Mahindra goods vehicle.
5. Now coming to the question of age, multiplier,
deduction and compensation on other heads, it is seen that
deceased was aged 34 years as on date of occurrence of
accident and the appropriate multiplier is taken as '16', which is
correct and does not call for interference. Towards future
prospectus, 40% is added considering the age of deceased and
the same is retained. Income taken by the tribunal was
Rs.7,000/- for lack of production of any proof of income,
however, in view of the notional income chart of the Legal
Services Authority, the income is required to be taken as
11,000/- as against 7,000/- and accordingly it is taken. The
NC: 2025:KHC:5294
deduction towards personal and living expenses is taken at
1/3rd, which does not call for interference and the same is
retained. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be
Rs.19,71,264/- (11,000/- + 40% = 15,400/- - 1/3rd = 10,267/-
x 12 x 16) as against Rs.12,54,000/-.
6. Towards loss of consortium, as there are three
dependents, each would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- per person.
Hence, Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded with 20% escalation in
addition i.e., Rs.24,000 is added to this amount. Towards
funeral expenses and loss of a state, Rs.15,000/- each is
awarded and 20% is added as escalation, hence, Rs.6000/- is
added to this amount.
7. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the
appellants / claimants would be entitled to total compensation
of Rs.21,51,264/- as against Rs.13,29,400/- as mentioned in
the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 19,71,264-00
Loss of consortium 1,20,000-00
Loss of consortium + 20% 24,000-00
escalation
Loss of estate and funeral 30,000-00
NC: 2025:KHC:5294
expenses
Loss of estate and funeral 6,000-00
expenses + 20% escalation
TOTAL 21,51,264-00
8. Accordingly, I pass the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The Judgment and award dated 23.10.2019 passed
by I Addl. District Judge and MACT at Tumakuru in
MVC No.1229/2017 is modified;
iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.21,51,264/- as against
Rs.13,29,400/- along with interest at 6% P.A.
iv) The balance enhanced compensation shall be paid
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the order.
v) All other stipulations of disbursement,
apportionment / release as ordered by the tribunal
is retained.
vi) ordered accordingly.
NC: 2025:KHC:5294
vii) It is made clear that the compensation amount
awarded to appellant No.3 (as he was a claimant
No.4 before the tribunal) shall be entitled to release
of the entire amount upon proper identification in
view of his advanced stage.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
THM
