MFA/3678/2024 of THE BRANCH MANAGER Vs HALAPPA on 18 August 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Insurer, assailing the Judgment and Award dated 19.09.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT, Thirthahalli1, in MVC No.1010/2018.

1 the Tribunal, for short

HC-KAR

2. One Smt.Rathnamma - a Sexagenarian (65 years) died on the spot in an accident occurred on 09.04.2018, along with her son who were in a Maruti Omni Car bearing registration No.KA-14/N-560 proceeding from Ikkeri towards Dharmasthala, when met with an accident with the offending vehicle Toyota Innova bearing Registration No.KA-05/AG-0567, due to the actionable rash and negligent driving by its driver. The claimants 1 to 3 are the children and claimants 4 and 5 are the daughter in law and grandson of Smt.Rathnamma, were before the Tribunal seeking compensation for untimely death of Rathnamma.

3. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, considered the deduction towards personal expenses of Rathnamma at 1/5th, added 10% towards future prospectus to the existing income of Rs.12,500/- and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,24,000/- towards 'loss of dependency' and Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', Rs.20,000/-

HC-KAR

towards funeral and transportation expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards 'attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment'. In total a sum of Rs.11,94,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Insurer is in appeal calling in question the quantum, which according to the Insurer is exorbitantly awarded.

4. Heard, Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurer and Sri.Ashwath.C.M, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5. Vide order dated 22.07.2026, notice to respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with.

5. Sri.B.Pradeep, submits that the Tribunal having considered the age of the deceased at 65 years, erred in considering the case to add 10% towards future prospectus, which is impermissible, in view of settled position of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD., VS. PRANAY

HC-KAR

SETHI2. He submits that future prospectus 10% as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only to the persons aged within 60 years and not more than that in the case of self-employment. Further, the Tribunal through considered that the claimants are major and married children, daughter-in-law and grandson, erred to consider the deduction at 1/5 towards personal expenses. Since the deceased was a married woman, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA & ORS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORP. & ANR3, deduction should have been 1/3 instead of 1/5. The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 'attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment', but as per the Police records and case of the claimants, the deceased died on the spot and there is no incidental charges, which requires to be awarded.

2 2017 (16) SCC 680 3 2009 (6) SCC 121

HC-KAR

6. Learned counsel fairly submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.15,000/- each under the head 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses, transportation of dead body', however has awarded Rs.20,000/- under 'funeral expenses and transportation' and sought to allow the appeal and reduce the compensation.

7. In contrast, Sri.Ashwath.C.M, learned counsel with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal having considered the income of the deceased as family income and looking at the number of claimants survived the deceased, deducted 1/5 towards personal expenses, which is just and proper. However, learned counsel fairly concedes that 10% added towards future prospectus is untenable and requires consideration. He further submits that, though the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head 'funeral expenses and transportation expenses' at Rs.20,000/-, but failed to award any compensation under the head 'loss of estate' and in view of settled position of law in PRANAY SETHI, the

HC-KAR

claimants are also entitled for 10% escalation on compensation awarded under the conventional heads, which the Tribunal has failed to consider and in the event, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reconsideration, the compensation ought to have been awarded within the meaning of just compensation, may be and compensation may be re- determined.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court has perused the entire appeal papers.

9. This Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep, towards deduction at 1/5 towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, this Court is of the opinion that compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded under 'attendant charge, conveyance, food and nourishment' is impermissible in law, as the record speaks itself that the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. This Court is of the opinion that loss of consortium

HC-KAR

awarded to five claimants is just and proper. The claimants are also entitled for 10% escalation on compensation awarded under conventional heads, for every completed three years, in view of settled position of law in PRANAY SETHI.

10. Further, this Court appreciating the submission of learned counsel Sri.Ashwath.C.M that, claimants are not entitled for addition of future prospectus on existing income of deceased, proceeds to re-assess the compensation, which is as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs.

1. Loss of dependency 9,24,000-00 7,00,000-00 (12,500x12x7x2/3)

2. Loss of consortium 2,00,000-00 2,00,000-00

3. Loss of estate - 15,000-00

4. Towards transportation and funeral expenses 20,000-00 15,000-00

5. 20% escalation (for two terms of three completed years on conventional heads) - 46,000-00

6. Attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment charges 50,000-00 -

TOTAL 11,94,000-00 9,76,000-00

HC-KAR

11. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for re- assessed compensation of Rs.9,76,000/-, as against Rs.11,94,000/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 19.09.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT, Thirthahalli, in MVC No.1010/2018 is modified and the compensation is reduced.

(iii) The claimants are entitled for reassessed reduced compensation of Rs.9,76,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

HC-KAR

(iv) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

(v) The appellant - Insurer shall deposit the balance reassessed reduced compensation along with interest supra, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(vi) The apportionment and disbursement is as per the order passed by the Tribunal.

(vii) The trial Court record secured if any, shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal without causing any delay.

(viii) No order as to costs.

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 ct-vn