Mfa3136 23 19 07 2024

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:28067
MFA No. 3136 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3136 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. NISHAAD BAANU,
W/O NOORULLA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2. NOORULLA
S/O WAZEER AHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
BOTH ARE
R/O MIRZA MOHALLA,
1ST CROSS, HASSAN CITY,
HASSAN - 573 201.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KAVITHA H C.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
ANJALI M 1. RAMESHA M.
Location: S/O MANJAPPA,
High Court of AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
Karnataka BEHIND JUNIOR COLLEGE,
LAKSHMIPURA LAYOUT,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
2. THE MANAGER,
CHOLA MANDALAM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
UNIT NO 4, 9TH FLOOR (LEVEL 6)
GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX,
59-C CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH M BLCOK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:28067
MFA No. 3136 of 2023
BANGALORE - 560 010.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. 04.08.2023, NOTICE TO R1 D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 275/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging
the judgment and award dated 15.11.2022 passed by the
III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member
Additional MACT, Hassan in MVC.No.275/2021. This
appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and
meagre compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence,
the claimants seek an enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
both parties.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:28067
MFA No. 3136 of 2023
3. The claimants filed this appeal under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of the death of
their daughter, who died in the accident dated
03.12.2020. It is alleged that the deceased was
proceeding in a Scooty bearing registration No.KA-19-EW-
3820 at about 2.15 p.m, the Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-35-A-6563 came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the deceased. Due to which, she
sustained grievous injuries and died in the Hospital. She
was working as Lab Technician and earning Rs.30,000/-
p.m. In an accident, the claimants lost their daughter and
suffered financial losses. Hence, prayed for compensation.
4. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1
and 2 appeared and filed a statement of objections, denied
the rash and negligent driving, and also denied the age,
income, and avocation, and prayed for the dismissal of the
appeal.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:28067
MFA No. 3136 of 2023
5. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the

deceased Fida Harmiya daughter of
Noorulla succumbed to the injuries due to
the Motor Vehicle Accident in question that
took place on 03.12.2020 at about 2.15
p.m. near Kaskebylu village of Mudigere,
due to rash and negligent driving of lorry
bearing Reg.No.K.A.19-W-3820 by its
driver as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to

compensation? If so, to what extent, from
which Respondent?
3. What order?
6. To prove the case, the claimant examined as
PW.1 and marked 15 documents, but the respondents did
not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal, after hearing the
arguments, answered Issue No.1 Affirmatively and
awarded compensation of Rs.11,57,000/-. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed a claim petition
seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently
contended that the Tribunal committed an error in holding

-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:28067
MFA No. 3136 of 2023
the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. Even
though the accident occurred in the year 2020, as per Lok
Adalath, the notional income is to be considered at
Rs.14,500/- p.m. Therefore, prayed for an enhancement of
compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents
supported the judgment of the Tribunal.
9. Having heard the argument, perused the
records the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the appellants are entitled for

enhancement of compensation? If so, to what
extent?"
10. On perusal of the records, the accident
occurred on 03.12.2020, due to the rash and negligence
of the driver of the Lorry, which is not disputed. The
police also filed a Charge sheet against the driver of the
Lorry and liability was fixed on the owner and insurer,

-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:28067
MFA No. 3136 of 2023
which is not in dispute. Only the quantum has been
considered by this Court.
11. The claimants produced Ex.P14, which reveals
the deceased was working as a Lab Technician and earning
Rs.30,000/- p.m. However, the documents were not
proved by examining the employer, and no passbook was
produced to show the income. Therefore, the only option
available to the Court is to take the notional income. In
the Lok Adalath for the accident year 2020, the Court
considered Rs.14,500/- as income. Therefore, I proposed
to take Rs.14,500/- p.m as notional income as against
Rs.10,000/- p.m considered by the Tribunal. Considering
Rs.14,500/- p.m as an income, 40% would have to be
added towards future prospects, and the deceased was
unmarried, so 50% would be deducted towards personal
and living expenses. Therefore, the loss of dependency
would be Rs.21,92,400/- (Rs.14,500 + 40% = Rs.20,300
- 50% = Rs.10,150 x 12 x 18).

-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:28067
MFA No. 3136 of 2023
12. Both the claimants are entitled to a parental
consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, Rs.80,000/-
to be awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'.
13. Towards 'conventional head', this Court deems
it appropriate to award Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000+10%
escalation).
14. Accordingly, I pass the following:
SL. HEADS AMOUNT IN

No. RS.
1 Loss of dependency 21,92,400-00
2 Loss of consortium 80,000-00
3 Conventional head 33,000-00
TOTAL 23,05,400-00
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed-in-part;
II. The judgment and award dated 15.11.2022

passed in MVC.No.275/2021 by the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Member
Additional MACT, Hassan is modified;
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:28067
MFA No. 3136 of 2023
III. The claimants are entitled to the compensation

of Rs. 23,05,400/- as against Rs.11,57,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal;
IV. The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate

of 9% per annum on the compensation amount
of Rs.11,57,000/- is left undisturbed. The
enhanced compensation shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% per annum;
V. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation amount within 60 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment;
VI. All other terms and conditions stipulated by the

Tribunal with regard to apportionment, deposit
and release shall stand intact;
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Mfa3136 23 19 07 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mfa3136 23 19 07 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mfa3136 23 19 07 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3136 OF 2023 (MV-D)

BANGALORE - 560 010.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

the judgment and award dated 15.11.2022 passed by the

III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member

Additional MACT, Hassan in MVC.No.275/2021. This

appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and

meagre compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence,

the claimants seek an enhancement of compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

3. The claimants filed this appeal under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of the death of

their daughter, who died in the accident dated

03.12.2020. It is alleged that the deceased was

proceeding in a Scooty bearing registration No.KA-19-EW-

3820 at about 2.15 p.m, the Lorry bearing registration

No.KA-35-A-6563 came in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the deceased. Due to which, she

sustained grievous injuries and died in the Hospital. She

was working as Lab Technician and earning Rs.30,000/-

p.m. In an accident, the claimants lost their daughter and

suffered financial losses. Hence, prayed for compensation.

4. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1

and 2 appeared and filed a statement of objections, denied

income, and avocation, and prayed for the dismissal of the

5. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioners prove that the

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to

6. To prove the case, the claimant examined as

PW.1 and marked 15 documents, but the respondents did

not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal, after hearing the

arguments, answered Issue No.1 Affirmatively and

awarded compensation of Rs.11,57,000/-. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed a claim petition

seeking enhancement of compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently

contended that the Tribunal committed an error in holding

the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. Even

though the accident occurred in the year 2020, as per Lok

Adalath, the notional income is to be considered at

Rs.14,500/- p.m. Therefore, prayed for an enhancement of

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents

supported the judgment of the Tribunal.

9. Having heard the argument, perused the

records the point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the appellants are entitled for

10. On perusal of the records, the accident

occurred on 03.12.2020, due to the rash and negligence

of the driver of the Lorry, which is not disputed. The

police also filed a Charge sheet against the driver of the

Lorry and liability was fixed on the owner and insurer,

which is not in dispute. Only the quantum has been