Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors.

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the deceased Sheela had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.01.1998 at about 9:30 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.OR-14-B-2969 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that deceased was 50 years old at the time of accident. As such, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 13. Income has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.1500/- per month. Future prospects of 25% ought to have been granted. Deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made. Amounts awarded under the conventional heads are on the lower side. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and impugned Award be modified as above. SUNENA 2026.04.07 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) FAO-2694-2020 Page 4 of 6 (cid:1) No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. I have

4. heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

5. The appellant before this Court is the 46-year-old married daughter of deceased Sheela. Thus, the appellant being married daughter of the deceased was not entitled to compensation in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2729764; wherein it is held that married daughter of the deceased is not entitled to compensation, unless financial dependency is proved. In any event, in view of the above admitted facts and undisputed legal position, appellant is definitely not entitled to enhancement of compensation.

6. A perusal of record of the case shows that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation amount as age of the deceased was determined to be 50 years on the basis of her Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P2). It was the pleaded case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident, the deceased was doing household work in other houses and was earning Rs.2000/- per month. However, no evidence to this effect was brought on record by the claimants. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as that of a labourer as Rs.1500/- per month, as remuneration towards services rendered by the deceased at home. I find no error in the same. SUNENA 2026.04.07 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) FAO-2694-2020 Page 5 of 6 (cid:1) As the claimants were the major children of the deceased,

7. deduction of 50% ought to have been made. However, the learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Further, as per the law prevailing at the time, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11 and awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards last rites; thereby granting total compensation of Rs.1,42,000/-.

8. From the above, it is clear that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a very just and fair compensation has been awarded. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In the case of “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. SUNENA 2026.04.07 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)

9. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. Thus, no ground whatsoever is FAO-2694-2020 Page 6 of 6 (cid:1) made out for enhancement of compensation.

10. In view of the above, present appeal stands dismissed on grounds of delay as well as on merits.

11. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

02.04.2026 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable: (Nidhi Gupta) Judge SUNENA 2026.04.07 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)