MFA/8311/2023 of MANGALAGOWRAMMA Vs TABRAZ KHAN on 17 September 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Even though the matter was at the stage of admission, with the consent of both sides, matter is taken up for final disposal.

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

2. This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) by the claimants not satisfied with the compensation amount awarded in M.V.C.No.879/2021 dated 07.08.2023 on the file of XXI Additional Small Cause Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-23) (for short, 'the Tribunal').

3. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation in respect of the road traffic accidental death of one Ranganatha.P, the husband of claimant No.1, who is the father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimant No.3. Claimants contended that Ranganatha.P, was the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52/L-4099 on 12.01.2021 at

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

09.45 p.m. and he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-64/0577 (in short, 'the offending vehicle') at Tumkur NH-48 road near Madarasa A Fathima Masjid. Due to the accident, the rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries at the spot. Hence, the claimants claimed compensation under several heads.

5. Respondent No.1- the owner of the offending vehicle has filed his objection statement, wherein he denied the case of claimants in toto and contended that the vehicle is validly insured with respondent No.2. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Respondent No.2 filed his objection statement, wherein he admitted the validity of the insurance policy as on the date of accident to the offending vehicle, but denied all other averments made in the

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

claim petition and further contended that, there was no valid FC, permit and DL. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. After framing of issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.35,39,808/- under the following heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment: Compensation heads Compensation amount

1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.33,86,808.00

2. Towards loss of Consortium to the petitioner No.1 Rs.40,000.00

3. Towards loss to estate Rs.16,500.00

4. Towards transportation of dead body funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses Rs.16,500.00

5. Towards loss of Filial consortium to petitioner Nos.2 & 3 (Each Rs.40,000/-) Rs.80,000.00 Total Rs.35,39,808.00

8. Not satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants are before this Court.

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

9. Having heard arguments of both sides and verifying appeal papers the point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?"

10. Finding of this Court is in 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

11. The facts established before the Tribunal are that the deceased was working as Supervisor (Quality In- charge) at SAPL Garments, and was drawing the salary of Rs.19,290/- at the time of accident as per Ex.P.13. Considering the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of deceased at Rs.17,788/- by deducting PT, ESI and EPF. However, ESI and EPF is for the benefit of the family and thus, the amount contributed towards ESI and EPF cannot be deducted. However, only PT (Professional Tax)

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

amount is to be deducted from the gross salary to decide the income of deceased as on the date of accident. PT was Rs.200/-Hence, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.19,090/- and not Rs.17,788/- has taken by the Tribunal.

12. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier, future prospects and deduction towards personal expenses properly. Thus, claimants are entitled for compensation towards 'loss of dependency' at Rs.19,090 + 40% x 12 x 17 x ⅔ = Rs.36,34,736/-

13. The Tribunal has awarded compensation towards 'loss of consortium to claimant Nos.1 to 3 at Rs.40,000/- each but failed to add 10% escalation charges as per National Insurance Company Ltd., v/s Pranay Sethi & Others1 case. Thus, the claimants are entitled for 10% escalation charges on 'loss of consortium' i.e., additional Rs.12,000/-.

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

14. Thus, claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.37,99,736/- instead of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Compensation heads Amount Towards loss of dependency Rs.36,34,736.00 Towards loss of Consortium Rs.1,32,000.00 Towards loss to estate Rs.16,500.00 Towards transportation of dead body funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses Rs.16,500.00 Total Rs.37,99,736.00

15. Hence, this Court passes the following:

ORDER

a. The appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.

b. Judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.879/2021 dated 07.08.2023 on the file of XXI Additional Small Cause Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-23) is modified holding that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.37,99,736/- as against Rs.35,39,808/- awarded by the Tribunal.

K B GEETHA

HC-KAR

c. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum form the date of petition till realization.

d. The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

e. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit shall be as per the award of the Tribunal.

f. No order as to costs.

g. Draw modified award accordingly.

(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

K B GEETHA