MFA/6313/2023 of SRI. VICTOR ALFRED. S Vs SRI. K. RATHINAM on 23 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

The claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.4326/2022 dated 01.07.2023 by the Court of I Addl. Small Cause Judge & Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-11), (for short “the Tribunal”), are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The factual matrix of the case are, on 29.06.2022 at 7.20 a.m. when one Ebenizer Alfred V., son of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and brother of appellant No.3 was traveling from Mallur towards Devanahalli International Airport in Suzuki Scooter bearing registration No.KA04-KC-9623 as a pillion rider, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-23/AZ-4330 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. Due to the impact, Ebenizer Alfred sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he succumbed to the same. Later, the jurisdictional Police registered the FIR and laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal.

HC-KAR

3. The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded a compensation of Rs.28,06,456/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants are before this Court.

4. We have heard learned counsel Sri Muralidhara P., for the appellants and learned counsel Sri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand for respondent No.2. Perused the evidence and documents placed before us.

5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.18,805/-, despite placing salary certificate - Ex.P15 of the deceased, which clearly establishes that the deceased was earning salary of Rs.28,129/-. He also contended that to prove Ex.P15, the co- employee of the deceased was examined as PW.2. In such circumstance, he prays to allow the appeal.

HC-KAR

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has exorbitantly awarded compensation under all the heads especially by considering the income of the deceased at Rs.18,805/- without deducting the other allowances. In such circumstances, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and award and other documents placed before us.

8. As could be gathered from records, the accident in question and coverage of insurance policy to the offending vehicle are not in dispute.

9. As far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the accident in question was of the year 2022 and according to the claimant the deceased was working in Baptist Hospital, Bangalore and was drawing a salary of Rs.28,129/-. To prove the same, the claimants placed the identity card- Ex.P14 and salary certificate-Ex.P15 of the deceased. These

HC-KAR

two documents were supported by the oral evidence of PW.2, who categorically stated that the deceased was working at Baptist Hospital. Though a contention was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased was a contractual employee, the documents indicates that he was working in Baptist Hospital for more than two years as on the date of accident. In such circumstance, the said contention of learned counsel cannot be considered. Hence, in our considered view the Tribunal has erred while assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.18,805/- instead Rs.28,129/- as per salary certificate-Ex.P15. As such, in view of the documentary evidence, we deem it just and appropriate to determine the income at Rs.28,129/- per month. However, after deducting Rs.200/- professional tax, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.27,929/- (Rs.28,129 - Rs.200).

10. Since the deceased was aged about 28 years, appropriate multiplier would be '17' and 40% future prospects requires to be added and as he was a bachelor, 50% requires to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.39,88,200/- (Rs.27,929 +

HC-KAR

40% - 50% X 12 X 17) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.26,85,456/- awarded by the Tribunal.

11. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, being just and proper, are affirmed.

12. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: [

13. Accoridngly, the claimant would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs.41,41,200/- as against Rs.28,06,456/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

14. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.)

1. Loss of Dependency 26,85,456 39,88,200

2. Loss of estate and funeral expenses 33,000 33,000

3. Towards filial Consortium 88,000 1,20,000 Total 28,06,456 41,41,200

HC-KAR

15. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The apportionment of the amount of compensation shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38