MFA/5712/2024 of SMT. SUMA W/O RAVIKUMAR, Vs SMT. P. SUJATHA D/O B A LINGAREDDY, on 9 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The above appeals are filed questioning the judgment and award dated 03.09.2020 in MVC.No.309/2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-VII at Shivamogga (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The insurer is in appeal in MFA.No.1556/2024 questioning the quantum of composition, whereas the claimants are in appeal in MFA.No.5712/2024 not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation and praying for enhancement of compensation.

3. The facts of the case are that, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental death of Anil Kumar, son of claimant Nos.1 and 2 in a road traffic accident that took place on 23.07.2019 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14/ES-2204 and

HC-KAR

S.R.E bus bearing registration No.KA-16/C-9553. It is stated that, the deceased was aged 19 years as on the date of accident. It is further stated that the deceased was working as a Ward-boy and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m.

4. On service of notice, respondent No.3-insurance company appeared, whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were placed ex-parte. Respondent No.3 in its objection admitted the insurance policy but contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing driving license as on the date of accident. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1, mother of the deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. No evidence or documents were placed on record by the respondent. The Tribunal on appreciation of the material placed on record awarded total compensation of Rs.22,31,800/- on the following heads, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit:

HC-KAR

Sl.No. PARTICULARS AMOUNT

1. Loss of dependency Rs. 21,16,800/-

2. Loss of consortium (Filial consortium Rs.44,000/-) Rs. 80,000/-

3. Transportation charges and funeral expenses Rs. 20,000/-

4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-

TOTAL Rs. 22,31,800/-

5. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m., deducted ¼ towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, applied multiplier of 18 and awarded consortium to claimant nos.1 and 2 only.

6. The insurer is in appeal, questioning the quantum of compensation, whereas the claimants are in appeal, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, praying for enhancement of compensation.

7. Heard learned counsel Sri.A.M.Venkatesh for Smt.Kausalya, learned counsel for the for appellant/insurance company and learned counsel Sri.Harish.N.R., for claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the

HC-KAR

insurer appeal. Perused the Tribunal records and the appeal memo.

8. Learned counsel for the insurer would submit that the deceased was aged 16 years and in that regard he submits that along with additional documents, I.A.No.3/2024 for production of additional documents has been filed, wherein, appellant has placed on record school records of deceased to establish that he was aged 16 years. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal could not have awarded the compensation on the head of dependency by applying multiplier. Thus, he would pray for allowing the appeal and to modify the compensation.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.Harish.N.R., for respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m., when the claimants stated that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., by working as Ward-Boy in a hospital. Further,

HC-KAR

learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATEL VS. BABUBHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI AND ANOTHER1 to contend that the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation towards the head of dependency by taking the multiplier. Thus learned counsel would pray for modifying the judgment and award under Appeal.

10. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on the perusal of the entire appeal papers as well as the Tribunal records, the following points would arise for our consideration: a) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court?

11. Answer to the above point would be partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: The accident in question that occurred on 23.07.2019 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14/ES- 2204 and S.R.E bus bearing registration No.KA-16/C-9553

1 2025 ACJ 1986

HC-KAR

and the accidental death of son of claimant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Anil Kumar is not in dispute in these appeals. The insurer is in appeal questioning the quantum of compensation, whereas the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

12. The claimants contended that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.15,000/- p.m., as he was working as a Ward-boy in a hospital. However, we notice that the claimants have not placed any material to establish the said income. In the absence of any material to establish the income, the Court or the Tribunal shall assess the income based on the income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. For the year 2019, the notional income fixed by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority is Rs.14,000/- p.m., and accordingly, the Tribunal is justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- p.m. Moreover, the Tribunal is

HC-KAR

also justified in deducting ½ towards personal expenses of the deceased, since he was a bachelor.

13. The other contention by the appellant insurer is that the appellant, the deceased was aged 16 years and the Tribunal committed an error in taking the age of the deceased at 19 years, based on the post mortem report, Exhibit P9. The counsel submit suggest that the additional documents, i.e. court records, are produced to establish the age of the deceased at 16 years. However, we need not go into that question as to whether the deceased was aged 16 or 19 years, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH NAGJIBHAI PATEL (supra). The above decision makes it clear that irrespective of the age, whether he is a minor or major, the notional income shall be taken for the purpose of awarding compensation on the head of dependency and multiplier shall be adopted to determine the total compensation in cases wherein the claimants have failed to establish the income. Thus, in view

HC-KAR

of the decision referred to above, the said contention of the insurer is rejected.

14. The Tribunal awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.1 and 2 only. Claimant Nos.3 and 4 are brothers of the deceased. The brothers of the deceased would also be entitled for the compensation on the head of consortium, since consortium is awarded as compensation for loss of love and affection. Thus, we are of the opinion that all the four claimants would be entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/- each.

15. The Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects and has rightly adopted 18 as multiplier taking the age of the deceased at 19 years.

16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: Sl.No. PARTICULARS AMOUNT

1. Loss of dependency Rs. 21,16,800/-

2. Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 each) Rs. 1,60,000/-

HC-KAR

3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-

4. Funeral expenses and transportation of body Rs. 15,000/-

TOTAL Rs.23,06,800/-

17. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.23,06,800/- as against Rs.22,31,800/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

18. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

a) MFA No. 1556/2024 is dismissed, whereas, MFA No. 5712/2024 is allowed in part.

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.23,06,800/- as against Rs.22,31,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

c) The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount

HC-KAR

with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

e) Apportionment, deposit & disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal.

f) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with Trial Court Records.

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20