MFA/161/2017 of SMITHA Vs K MAHABHADRAPPA on 22 September 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 02.08.2016 in MVC No.71 of 2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Holalkere, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,57,500/-, for the death of husband of appellant No.1.

2. The husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 and son of respondent Nos.3 and 4 namely, Kali Prasad died on 08.11.2014 in the road traffic accident. The appellants herein have approached the MACT seeking compensation for the death of Kali Prasad. In the claim petition, the parents of the deceased were arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 4. According to the appellants, the

HC-KAR

deceased was working as Bill Collector at KPTCL and was also carrying agriculture operations. According to them, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and added 30% for future prospects. Applying the multiplier '17' and deducting 1/4th of the income for personal expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,94,500/- towards loss of dependency.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the assessment of the income at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side and the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of Rs.8,500/- and added 40% as future prospectus. It is his further submission that the compensation awarded for loss of consortium and love and affection is inadequate and liable to be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent - insurer seeks to justify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that there are no grounds for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal has granted sufficient compensation under each of the heads. Learned counsel

HC-KAR

hasten to add that the claimants have not produced any documents in proof of the income of the deceased as claimed by them in the claim petition and therefore, the Tribunal had no other option except to apply the notional income for determination of compensation towards loss of dependency.

5. Alternatively, it is his submission that if this Court were to enhance the compensation under the head loss of dependency and the loss of consortium, the death of respondent No.4/father is required to be taken note of and appropriate deduction of personal expenses based on number of dependents is to be made. In addition, it is contended that in view of the death of respondent No.4, the grant of compensation towards loss of consortium shall be restricted only to appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants is right in his submission that the consideration of notional income at Rs.5,000/- in respect of the accident occurred during the year

HC-KAR

2014 is in lower side and even according to the chart issued by the Legal Services Authority, the notional income in respect of the accident for the year 2014-15, Rs.8,500/- is required to be considered. Since the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of accident, future prospects of 40% is to be considered. In view of the fact that the respondent No.4/father died during the pendency of this appeal, the deduction of personal expenses shall be considered at 1/3rd since the number of dependents are 3 in number. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is determined at Rs.15,23,200/- (8,500 + 3,400 (40%) x 12 x 16 x 2/3rd).

8. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection is inadequate, inasmuch as, the loss of consortium in respect of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 shall be granted at Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3). In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Pranay Sethi1, the appellants are entitled for compensation of 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

HC-KAR

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

9. Since the entire medical expenses of Rs.2,83,000/- claimed by the appellants is already granted, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the total compensation for which the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 are entitle to is re- assessed as follows: Sl. No. Particulars of heads As per the award of MACT (Rs.) Re-assessed compensation (Rs.)

Loss of dependency 9,94,500/- 15,23,200/-

Loss of love and affection and Loss of consortium 45,000/- 1,20,000/-

Funeral Expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-

Loss of estate 10,000/- 15,000/-

Medical Expenses 2,83,000/- 2,83,000/-

Total 13,57,500/- 19,56,200/-

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has erroneously directed that the entire compensation towards medical expenses shall be paid to respondent Nos.3 and 4 only on the ground that the medical bills were in the custody of the said respondents. In fact, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were entirely dependant upon the

HC-KAR

income of the deceased and therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 had no means to meet the medical expenses. Therefore, it is only appellant No.1 who is entitled for entire medial expenses.

11. As noticed above, during the pendancy of this appeal, respondent No.4 i.e., father of the deceased died and other two sons of respondent Nos.3 and 4 were brought on record as respondent Nos.(a) and (b). Despite service of notice, respondent Nos.4(a) and (b) remained unrepresented.

12. Considering the overall circumstances and the fact that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased, the contention of the appellants that the apportionment of compensation and entitling respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the entire medical expenses is erroneous does not merit consideration.

13. It is not in dispute that the medical bills were produced by the parents. Therefore, presumption of medical expenses having been met by the parents lies in their favour. No rebuttal evidence is available on record. However, this Court deems it appropriate to redo the apportionment of

HC-KAR

compensation in light of the death of respondent No.4 - father and non representation of respondent Nos.4(a) and (b).

14. We are of the considered opinion that in light of changed circumstances, appellant No.1 should be made entitled for 40% of the total compensation and appellant No.2 shall be entitled for 30% of the compensation and respondent No.3 is entitled for 30% of the compensation.

15. In the result,

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The judgment and award dated 02.08.2016 in MVC No.71 of 2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Holalkere, is modified entitling the appellants and respondent No.3 for an re-assessed compensation of Rs.19,56,200/- as against the compensation already granted by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.13,57,500/-.

(iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, till its realization.

(iv) In view of the re-apportionment of the compensation as detailed above, necessary adjustment of the

HC-KAR

compensation already released and the compensation to be released on account of enhancement in this appeal shall be made by the Tribunal while releasing the balance compensation.

Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records, forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment, for needful action.

Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE

BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5