(BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., ADVOCATE) v. IS DISPENSED WITH)

(BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR AND:

1. DILEEP KUMAR VARMA S/O RATHEESH VARMA, NO.9304, PRESTIGE MONTE CARLO, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, ANANTHAPURA GATE, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064

2. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE THE MANAGER, DOOR NO.620, A-1 12TH MAIN, 35TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010 (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.5231/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL (SCCH-8), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR OF COMPENSATION COMPENSATION. JUDGE AND ACMM., MACT, ENHANCEMENT SEEKING AND THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30th November 2019, passed by the 12th Additional Judge and ACMM., MACT, (SCCH-8), Bengaluru, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.5231/2018, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on

09.07.2018 at about 04.15 p.m. near Begam Mall Junction, Halasur Road, the deceased met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a car bearing registration No.KA-50-M-5475. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged about 68 years. He was driver of an autorickshaw and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimants are his wife and children; they were depending - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR upon his earnings. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Both respondents have filed their respective written statements denying the averments of the claim petition. Respondent No.2 denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues.

6. The claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.15. Respondents have not led any evidence.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, held that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month, applied the multiplier - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR as '5', taking his age as 68 years as pleaded, deducted 50% of his income towards his personal expenses and awarded the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependence 2,70,000/- Loss of consortium Loss of estate 40,000/- 15,000/- Funeral and Transportation expenses 15,000/- Parental consortium Total 1,60,000/- 5,00,000/-

8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has not assessed the notional income of the deceased properly. The deceased was a married person and his wife along with daughters and son were dependent on his earnings. The Tribunal has erroneously deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenses - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR instead of 1/4th, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Seema Rani and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.1 Learned counsel further submitted that amount of compensation awarded under conventional heads are not as per law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2. He also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently contended that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the materials available on record and awarded the just amount of compensation. The deceased was aged about 68 years and the only dependent on his earnings was his wife i.e., claimant No.1. Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are married daughters and claimant No.5 is a major son. They were not depending upon earnings of the deceased. Considering 1 2025 ACJ 338 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR these facts, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenses. It does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. The Tribunal has followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Pranay Sethi(supra), Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others4 and awarded compensation under conventional heads. In the case of Pranay Sethi(supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that once in every three years 10% of the amount awarded under the conventional heads has to be recalculated. In the present case, the accident occurred during the year 2018. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to the said benefits and hence, the Tribunal has not added 10% of the amount in the conventional heads. There is no error in the 3 2009 ACJ 1298 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR said finding. Therefore, the assessment of compensation in the case of Prabhavathi and Others Vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Trans. Corpn.5 is not applicable to facts of the present case and it was decided on the basis of that case.

12. In this case, the deceased was said to be a driver and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimants were unable to substantiate the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month it is on the lower side. Following the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.12,500/- per month. The deceased was aged about 68 years. Therefore, there is no question of addition of income towards future prospects. The suitable multiplier applicable is '5'. The deceased left behind his wife and 5 children. Since he was a married person and his wife is alive, as held in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as 5 2025 ACJ 533 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR well as Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal erred in deducting 50% of his income towards personal expenses. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependence (12,500x12x5x2/3) 5,00,000/- Loss of consortium Loss of estate 2,00,000/- 15,000/- Funeral and Transportation expenses 15,000/- Total 7,30,000/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal 5,00,000/- Enhancement- 2,30,000/-

13. The claimants are also entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR

14. Undisputedly, respondents are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. They are jointly and severely liable to pay the said amount.

15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 30th November 2019, passed MVC.No.5231/2018, by the 12th Additional Judge and ACMM., MACT, (SCCH-8), Bengaluru, stands modified. iii) The claimants are entitled enhanced compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal is not disturbed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:41004 MFA No. 3668 of 2020 HC-KAR vi) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36