Karnataka High Court

Sri R Hanumantha vs Sri J Sridhar on 19 March, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                           -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:11495
                                                    MFA No. 886 of 2023




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                      DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
                                        BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.886 OF 2023 (MV-D)
              BETWEEN:
              1.    SRI R.HANUMANTHA
                    S/O.LATE RANGAPPA
                    AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

              2.    SRI H.RUPESH
                    S/O.SRI R.HANUMANTHA
                    AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

              3.    SRI H.HARSHA
                    S/O.SRI R.HANUMANTHA
                    AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

              4.    KUM.NANDINI
                    D/O.SRI R.HANUMANTHA
                    AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

                    ALL ARE RESIDING AT
                    NO.33, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS
Digitally signed    PARAMOUNT GARDEN
by                  THALAGHATTAPURA
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA          KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
GUPTA               BENGALURU-560 062
SREENATH                                                  ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI T.V.NANJE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA        AND:
              1.    SRI J.SRIDHAR
                    S/O.JAYARAM
                    AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                    R/AT THATAGUNI VILLAGE
                    AND POST
                    KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
                    BENGALURU 560 062
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:11495
                                       MFA No. 886 of 2023




2.   ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
     INSURANCE CO. LTD.
     NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING
     9TH FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 001
     REP. BY ITS MANAGER
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
    NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O. DATED 10.07.2024)
     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR      VEHICLES ACT, 1988
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.3894/2018 BY THE C/C XXII ADDITIONAL
SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

the judgment and award dated 19.10.2022 passed in

MVC.No.3894/2018 by the C/c XXII Additional Small

Causes Judge, Member-MACT, Bengaluru (for short 'the

tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of

inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

NC: 2025:KHC:11495

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 01.06.2017 at about 8.45 p.m., one Kavitha,

aged about 34 years, was travelling along with the rider,

her son namely, H.Rupesh on a motor cycle bearing

registration No.KA-05-HJ-3883 as a pillion rider, after

closing the provision store at Mallasandra and returning

home at Thalaghattapura. They reached near Sriram

Simphoni Apartment of Vajarahalli Village and there was a

newly laid road hump without white topping/marking or

any signal board. The rider of the motorcycle was familiar

with the road and he was travelling in a normal speed but

due to the road humps and the darkness of the night, the

said Kavitha, the pillion rider fell down and sustained

severe head injury. She was immediately shifted to KIMS

Hospital, but unfortunately, the Doctor declared her as

brought dead.

3.1 Due to the unfortunate death of the said Kavitha

in the road traffic accident, the claimants who are none

other than the husband, children and mother-in-law of the

NC: 2025:KHC:11495

deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation

against the owner and the Insurance Company of the

offending vehicle.

3.2 Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle

did not appear and he was placed ex parte. Respondent

No.2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying

the claim of the claimants and stated that the rider of the

vehicle did not possess a valid and effective Driving

Licence as on date of occurrence of accident.

3.3 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.21,71,300/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

and fixed joint liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and

directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit

the compensation within sixty days.

3.4 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this

Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

NC: 2025:KHC:11495

4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

for the appellants-claimants that the compensation

awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. The tribunal

has failed to take into consideration the proper income for

awarding just and reasonable compensation, so also, it is

contended that the deductions made towards personal and

living expenses at 1/3rd is erroneous, arbitrary and the

same requires to be modified as there are four

dependants. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of

compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance

Company contends that the judgment and award passed

by the tribunal is just and reasonable. He sustains the

same on the ground that admittedly, there is no proof of

income produced by the claimant before the tribunal or

before this Court. Though certain Income Tax Returns are

filed, it is much prior to the date of occurrence of accident.

Even according to the case of the claimants, the deceased

had left the job and she was running a provision store

NC: 2025:KHC:11495

business. Even in the records that are produced before the

tribunal, no documentary evidence is placed to show as to

what is the exact income that is earned from the provision

store by the deceased as on the date of occurrence of

accident. Therefore, the tribunal is justified in doing a

guesswork and awarding notional income of Rs.11,000/-

as per the Legal Services Authority chart, which is

sustainable and the same does not need any

enhancement. With regard to other aspect of

compensation awarded towards personal and living

expenses, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

sustains the same as there is no ground made out to

interfere. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the

appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants-claimants and learned counsel for respondent-

Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment

and award, the occurrence of accident, involvement of

vehicle, death having occurred due to the Road Traffic

NC: 2025:KHC:11495

Accident are proved and established by production of

Exs.P1 to P28. The appellants-claimant No.1 being the

husband, claimant Nos.2 to 4, being the children and

claimant No.5 being mother-in-law of the deceased, is not

disputed.

7. Now coming to the question of age, avocation,

income, multiplier, deductions and consortium for

awarding compensation, it is seen that the deceased was

aged 34 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable is

'16', which is correctly taken by the tribunal and the same

does not call for interference. The tribunal has awarded

40% towards future prospects, in view of the deceased

being aged less than 40 years and the same is retained.

The tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and

living expenses. However, the same calls for interference,

as there are four dependants. Therefore, 1/4th has to be

deducted towards personal and living expenses.

8. With regard to income, the tribunal has taken the

income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/-per month, which

NC: 2025:KHC:11495

may not be proper and hence, it calls for interference.

However, now the question is what is the income of the

deceased to be taken?

9. Admittedly, no documents are placed before the

Court as to what is the exact income that is earned by the

deceased as on date of occurrence of accident. Though it

was stated that while she was working in the Agri Gold

Farms India Pvt. Ltd., she was earning roughly around

Rs.16,000/- and odd per month, but the fact remains that

she has left that job and started a provision store,

however, nothing cogent material has been placed before

the Court as to what is the exact income per month or per

annum earned by the deceased from the provision store.

Therefore, since no material was placed before the

tribunal, the tribunal has relied upon the notional income

chart. Therefore, I am in agreement with learned counsel

for claimants that the income requires to be partially

enhanced, taking into consideration that the deceased was

working in the Agri Gold Farms India Pvt. Ltd., and was

NC: 2025:KHC:11495

filing Income Tax Returns earning around 16,000/- and

odd per month roughly and she would certainly be earning

more than that, when she moved on to do the provision

store business. But, due to lack of any material, it cannot

be presumed that the deceased was earning a sum of

Rs.16,000/- per month as on date of occurrence of

accident. Nevertheless, it cannot also be said that the

deceased could be equated with a coolie or a daily wager.

Under the circumstances, this Court would have to do a

guesswork on the basis of previous avocation prior to the

death and the avocation as on date of the death and arrive

at a nominal income commensurate to what she was

earning earlier and as on date of occurrence of accident.

10. Considering all these aspects and the materials

placed on record and the evidence adduced, this Court is

of the opinion that the income could be taken at

Rs.14,000/- per month rather than Rs.11,000/- taken by

the tribunal. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to

the compensation of Rs.28,22,400/- (Rs.14,000/- +

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11495

40% = Rs.19,600/- - 1/4th = Rs.14,700/- x 12 x 16)

towards loss of dependency as against Rs.19,71,264/-

awarded by the tribunal.

11. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss

of consortium, as there are four dependents, which does

not call for interference and the same is retained.

12. The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards

funeral and transportation expenses, so also, Rs.20,000/-

towards loss of estate, which does not call for interference

and the same are retained. However, this Court refrains

from awarding any escalation amount, under this head as

the same is adjusted towards the said heads, where the

excess compensation is already awarded by the tribunal.

13. In view of the above, the claimants would be

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.30,22,400/- as

against Rs.21,71,300/- as mentioned in the table below:

             Heads                     Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency                        28,22,400-00
Loss of consortium                         1,60,000-00
                                - 11 -
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:11495





Funeral     and  transportation                         20,000-00
expenses
Loss of estate                                         20,000-00
             TOTAL                                 30,22,400-00

14. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgment and award dated 19.10.2022

passed in MVC.No.3894/2018 by the C/c XXII

Additional Small Causes Judge, Member-MACT,

Bengaluru, is modified;

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of

Rs.30,22,400/- as against Rs.21,71,300/- along

with interest @ 6% p.a.;

iv) The respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the

balance compensation amount within a period of

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment;

v) The entire compensation amount shall be released

in favour of the appellants-claimants as per the

terms of the tribunal by Electronic transfer to the