MFA/2963/2023 of THE MANAGER Vs SMT. D. GANGAMMA on 16 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 02.11.2022 passed in MVC No.1582/2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (for short “Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.21,40,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that:

Due to the death of one Shivakumar in a road traffic accident that occurred on 13.03.2020, his legal representatives i.e., mother and brother filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

3. To prove the claim petition averments, claimant No.1 got herself examined as P.W.2 and produced the documents as Ex.P12 to Ex.P20 along with other claimants in different MVCs.

4. The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, has partly allowed the claim petition awarding total compensation as stated supra. Being dissatisfied

HC-KAR

with the same, the claimants filed MFA.No.4221/2023 whereas the Insurance Company filed MFA No.2963/2023 being aggrieved by the exorbitant compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants.

5. We have heard learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep for the Insurance Company, so also Sri.B.Bopanna, learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the evidence and documents placed before us.

6. As could be gathered from the records that the occurrence of the accident, death of Shivakumar in the said accident and coverage of insurance policy to the offending vehicle are not in dispute.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has totally erred while considering the income of the deceased at Rs.14,500/- notionally, despite placing sufficient documents at Ex.P21, Ex.P22 and Ex.P26 to Ex.P28. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the deceased was working as Manager at M/s.Anugraha Properties, Bangalore and he was drawing salary of Rs.50,000/- p.m. To prove the same, the Proprietor of the firm was examined as

HC-KAR

P.W.3 before the Tribunal. Apart from that, pay slips of the deceased were produced at Ex.P18 to prove the income, which clearly depicts that the deceased was earning Rs.42,000/- p.m. In such circumstances, he prays for allowing the appeal of the claimants.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability and also awarding compensation on all the heads i.e., loss of dependency, loss of estate and loss of consortium. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by dismissing the appeal filed by the claimants.

9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record including the original documents.

10. As could be gathered from records and on perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a MBA graduate and he was working in M/s. Anugraha Properties, Bangalore. Ex.P18-salary slips produced by the claimant depicts that he was earning Rs.42,000/- p.m.

HC-KAR

Apart from that, he also produced the Ledger Extracts from 01.04.2016 to 09.04.2022 as per Ex.P21, Ex.P22, Ex.P26 to Ex.P28. PW.3 - the proprietor of the firm i.e., employer of the deceased deposed to that effect.

11. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company that in Ex.P18-salary slip it is mentioned that the salary paid through Bank account, the claimant has not placed any statement of accounts, we are unable to accept the same for the simple reason that Ex.P18 is corroborated with the evidence of PW.3 - employer. Further, it is not denied by the Insurance Company that the deceased was working in M/s.Anugraha properties. The claimant also placed Exs.P19 and P20 i.e., the certificates for having passed degree and MBA. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the notional income at Rs.14,500/-. As such, in view of the documentary evidence, we deem it just and appropriate to determine the income at Rs.42,000/- per month. However, after deducting Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,400/- towards tax and professional tax respectively, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.4,76,600/- (Rs.5,04,000 - Rs.25,000 - Rs.2,400) .

HC-KAR

12. Since the deceased was aged about 28 years, appropriate multiplier would be '17' and 40% future prospects require 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.56,71,540/- (Rs.4,76,600 + 40% - 50% X 17) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.20,70,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

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

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

15. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs.57,41,540/- as against Rs.21,40,600/-, Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.)

1. Loss of Dependency 20,70,600 56,71,540

2. Loss of estate 15,000 15,000

3. Towards filial Consortium (for petitioner No.1) 40,000 40,000

4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 15,000 15,000 Total 21,40,600 57,41,540

HC-KAR

along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

16. 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.

17. The rejection of the claim of the brother of the deceased by the Tribunal is affirmed.

18. 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.

19. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants is allowed in part and the appeal of the Insurer is dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MPK/HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0