MFA/3268/2023 of THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs M. GEELA NAYAK @ MUDAVATH GILYA NAIK on 16 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The above two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 02.01.2023 in MVC No.1687/2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”).

2. Both insurer and claimants are in appeals. The insurer is before this Court, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas, the claimants are in appeal, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:

The claimants being sons of one Kaveramma, aged about 83 years, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the

HC-KAR

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental death of the said Kaveramma in a road traffic accident that occurred on 13.03.2020 involving Car bearing Registration No.KA-50/N-5271 and another Car bearing Registration No.KA-04/AB-0604. It is stated that the deceased was a Home Maker and due to the death of the deceased mother, it is stated that the claimants are put into mental shock and hardship.

4. On issuance of notice, the respondent-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the claim petition averments and further it is stated that the accident occurred solely due to negligent driving of the of driver of the offending Car bearing No.KA-04/AB-0604.

5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.2 apart from examining other witnesses and also marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P44.

HC-KAR

6. It is to be noted that common evidence was recorded clubbing four claim petitions. However, no evidence was led in by the respondent-Insurance Company.

7. The Tribunal, on appreciation of material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.6,90,020/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.14,500/- p.m.; applied the appropriate multiplier of 5 taking into consideration the age of the deceased at 83 years and deducted 1/3 of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased.

8. Heard learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep for the insurer and learned counsel Sri.A.S.Girish, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the entire appeal papers including the original records of the Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel Sri.Pradeep for insurer would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant

HC-KAR

and as such, he prays for reducing the compensation taking note of the age of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that the claimants are major sons and they would not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Moreover, he submits that deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 50% instead of 1/3 of the assessed income.

10. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.A.S.Girish for claimants would submit that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and he would pray for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel would submit that deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses is proper and correct taking into consideration the dependency. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurer and to allow the appeal of the claimants.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers and on going through the entire records of the Tribunal, the only point which falls for

HC-KAR

our consideration is as to whether the insurer or claimants have made out any ground to interfere with the judgment and award in question?

12. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: The accident that occurred on 13.03.2020 involving car bearing Registration No. KA-50/N-5271 and another Car bearing Registration No.KA-04/AB-0604 and the accidental death of mother of the claimants deceased Kaveramma is not in dispute in these appeals. The insurer is in appeal before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation whereas the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

13. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 83 years and in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS v/s DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 5; so also the Tribunal is justified in taking notional income of the

HC-KAR

deceased mother of the claimants who was aged about 83 years as on the date of accident at Rs.14,500/- p.m. There is no other material whatsoever to differ with the Tribunal regarding assessment of income.

14. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Admittedly, both the claimants were living along with the mother and taking care for her, hence the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3 of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased in terms of SARLA VERMA (supra). If the deceased was a bachelor 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses and thereafter depending on the members of the family, deduction towards personal expenses shall have to be effected. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants towards consortium and has rightly awarded compensation on conventional heads.

HC-KAR

15. We do not find any reason or material to differ with the finding arrived at and compensation awarded by the Tribunal. There is no merit in both the appeals and accordingly, both the appeals stand rejected.

SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

MPK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0