THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. SUNITA TONY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

M.F.A.NO.163 OF 2014 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.10074 OF 2013 (MV-I) M.F.A.NO.10075 OF 2013 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.10076 OF 2013 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.10077 OF 2013 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.10078 OF 2013 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.10079 OF 2013 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.160 OF 2014 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.164 OF 2014 (MV) M.F.A.NO.165 OF 2014 (MV) M.F.A.NO.166 OF 2014 (MV) M.F.A.NO.167 OF 2014 (MV) M.F.A.NO.455 OF 2014 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.456 OF 2014 M.F.A.NO.457 OF 2014 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.458 OF 2014 (MV-D) M.F.A.NO.459 OF 2014 (MV-I) M.F.A.NO.460 OF 2014 (MV-D)

IN M.F.A.NO.163 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

(BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3796/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.10074 OF 2013:

BETWEEN:

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.186, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560027,

BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002, BY ITS MANAGER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,3, AND 4; (R4 MINOR, REPRESENTED BY R3); SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3046/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,07,802/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A.NO.10075 OF 2013:

BETWEEN:

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.186, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027, BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAN BUILDING, II FLOOR NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002 BY ITS MANAGER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY SMT.RATHNAMMA GUARDIAN AND GRANDMOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.18, SRINIVASA GARDEN, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 094.

CHIKKABALLAPURA-563 101. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T N VISWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; (R2 MINOR – REPRESENTED BY R1); SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3796/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.24,24,505/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.

M.F.A.NO.10076 OF 2013:

BETWEEN:

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.186, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE 560027, BY ROYAL SUNDARAM , ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI 600 002, BY IT’S MANAGER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BEING MINOR,REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER S SHIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT NO.1

BOTH ARE R/A NO.1, SRINIVASA GARDEN, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE 560094.

(BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,2,4 AND 5; (R5 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R4); SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3797/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.12,21,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A.NO.10077 OF 2013:

BETWEEN:

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.186, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027, BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002, BY IT’S MANAGER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHIKKABALLAPURA-563 101. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; (R2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1); SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3836/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.11,11,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A.NO.10078 OF 2013:

BETWEEN:

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., NO.286, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560027, BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI – 600 002, BY IT’S MANAGER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BASAVESWARA LAYOUT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, NAGASETTIHALLI, BENGALURU – 94.

CHIKKABALLAPURA – 563101.

BANGALORE 94,

REPRESENTED BY R4 GRAND MOTHER. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, 2 AND 4; R5 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R4; SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5109/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, AND XXVIII ACMM,MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,22,300/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A.NO.10079 OF 2013:

BETWEEN:

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO 186, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, WILSON GARDEN HOSUR MAIN ROAD,

BANGALORE 560027, BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR NO 1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI 600 002, BY IT’S MANAGER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BANGALORE - 94. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3, R4, R5 ARE SERVED; SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5110/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.13,01,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A.NO.160 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.17, MUNIHANUMAIAH BLOCK, BASAVESWARA LAYOUT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU – 560094. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027.

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3, R4 – SERVED; R4 MINIOR REPRESENTED BY R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5109/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.164 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

SRI S SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE N.C.SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, SRINIVASA GARDEN, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI,

BENGALURU-560094. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3, R4 SERVED; R4 – MINOR REPRESENTED BY R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3046/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.165 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.18, SRINIVASA GARDEN, 1ST MAIN ROAD,1ST CORSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 094. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.RATHNAMMA GUARDIAN AND GRAND MOTHER, R/AT NO.18, SRINIVASA GARDEN, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 094. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED: 06.04.2015 NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 – DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3797/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.166 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

BOTH ARE R/AT NO 17, MUNIHANUMAIAH BLOCK, BASAVESWARA LAYOUT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560094. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.2015 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5110/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.167 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560094.

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 – DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 09.01.2015)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3836/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM,(SCCH-13), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.455 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

KSRTC, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101, NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CAR NO. KA-51-TR-3067). ... RESPONDENTS

NOTE: R.C.OWENER LATE VENKATACHALAPATHI

DEAD, LRS OF RC OWNER BEING THE PARTIES AS

PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 IN THESE CASES, THEY ARE

NOT IMPLEADED.

(BY SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND 2; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3796/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, BENGULURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A.NO.456 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K S R T C, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K S R T C, CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS, CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BANGALORE 560 027, (INSURER OF SCORPIO CAR NO.KA-51-TR-3067).

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE C/R1 AND R2; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 R5)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5109/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, BENGALURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.457 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101, NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

GUARDIAN AND GRAND MOTHER – RESPONDENT NO.4 HEREIN. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1& 2; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 SERVED; R5 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R4)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5110/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,01,000/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A.NO.458 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K S R T C, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101, NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K S R T C, CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

RESPONDENTS, R/AT NO.18, SRINIVASA GARDEN, 1ST MAIN ROAD,1ST CROSS, NAGASETTIHALLI, BANGALORE- 560 094.

R/AT NO.18,SRINIVASA GARDEN, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGASETTIHALLI, BANALORE - 560 094. (RC OWNER OF SCORPIO CAR), SINCE MINOR IN AGE, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND GRAND MOTHER - RESPONDENT NO.4 HEREIN. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATHA, ADVCOATE FOR C/R1 & R2; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3797/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT,BANGALORE AWARDING A SUM OF RS.12,21,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A.NO.459 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR- 562 101, NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS, CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

IST MAIN ROAD, IST CROSS, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE 560 094, (RC OWNER OF SCORPIO CAR),

SINCE MINOR IN AGE REPRESENTED, BY HIS GUARDIAN AND GRAND MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3046/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,07,802/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A.NO.460 OF 2014:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA -562101, NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

S/O LATE VENKATACHALAPATHI, SINCE MINOR IN AGE, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND GRAND MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN, BOTH RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.18, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NAGASETTIHALLI, BANGALORE – 560094.

NOTE: RC OWNER LATE VENKATACHALAPATHI DEAD, LRS OF RC OWNER BEING THE PARTIES AS PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 IN THESE CASES, THEY ARE NOT IMPLEADED – AS PER NOTE IN CAUSE TITLE BEFORE MACT)

(BY SRI T N VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 )

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:3.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3836/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,11,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Though these appeals are listed for admission with the consent of learned counsel on both sides they are heard finally.

Sl No

MVC No. Name of the Injured/ Death Person Claimant Respon- dent Negli- gence Award Amt. Rs.

Claim- ants Appeal KSRTC Appeal Royal Sun- daram Alliance Insu- rance Company Limited Date of Award 1 MVC No. 3796/ 2011 Venkata- chalpathy (Death Case) Age 37 Years Rath- namma and Bhushan Gowda (Mother and Minor Son) The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Chikka- ballapura and another 70:30 against KSRTC and Insurance Company Respect- ively 24,24,505/- 6% P.A.

MFA No. 163/ 2014

MFA No. 455/ 2014

MFA No. 10075/ 2013

3.9.2013

MVC No. 5109/ 2011

M.Murthy (Death Case) Age 55 years

Bhagya Murthy and Gnana- priya (Wife and Daughter)

The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Chikka- ballapura and others 70:30 against KSRTC and Insurance Company respect- Ively 6,22,300/- 6% P.A.

MFA No. 160/ 2014

MFA No. 456/ 2014

MFA No. 10078/ 2013

3.9.2013

MVC No. 3046/ 2011

S.Shiva- kumar (injured)

S.Shiva- kumar

The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Chikka- ballapura And others 70:30 against KSRTC and Insurance Company respect- ively

5,07,802/- 6% P.A

MFA No. 164/ 2014

MFA No. 459/ 2014

MFA No. 10074/ 2013

3.9.2013

MVC No. 3797/ 2011

Mamatha (Death Case) Age 25 Years S.Shiva- kumar and Sanika (Husband and minor daughter)

The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Chikka- ballapura and others

70:30 against KSRTC and Insurance Company respect- ively 12,21,000/- 6% P.A

MFA No. 165/ 2014

MFA No. 458/ 2014

MFA No. 10076/ 2013

3.9.2013

MVC No. 5110/ 2011

Gagan (Death Case) 22 years Bhagya Murthy and Gnana- priya (Mother and Sister) The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Chikka- ballapura and others

70:30 against KSRTC and Insurance Company respect- ively

20,00,000/- 6% P.A. MFA No. 166/ 2014

MFA No. 457/ 2014

MFA No. 10079/ 2013

3.9.2013

6 MVC No. 3836/ 2011

Pavithra (Death Case) Age 28 years

Rath- namma and Bhushan Gowda (Mother-in law and Minor son) The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Chikka- ballapura and another

70 favour of KSRTC and 30 favour of Insurance respect- ively

11,11,000/- 6% P.A

MFA No. 167/ 2014

MFA No. 460/ 2014

MFA No. 10077/ 2013

3.9.2013

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) What order or award?

In MVC No.3796/2011: 1) Whether petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of deceased Venkatachalapathi?

2) Whether the petitioners proves that on 26.3.2011 at about 5.15 a.m., when the deceased was traveling in Scorpio car bearing No.KA 51 TR 3067 on NH 4, Kolara – Mulbagilu

Road, near Kamanuru village, Mulbagilu, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-40-F-221 came from opposite side at high speed and in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against Scorpio car and due to the impact the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

4) What order or award?

In MVC No.3797/2011: 1) Whether petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of deceased Smt. Mamatha?

2) Whether the petitioners proves that on 26.3.2011 at about 5.15 a.m., when the deceased was traveling in Scorpio car baring No.KA 51 TR 3067 on NH.4, Kolara – Mulbagilu Road, near Kamanuru village, Mulbagilu, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA – 40 – F – 221 came from opposite side at high speed and in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against Scorpio car and due to the impact the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom?

4) What order or award?

In MVC No.3836/2011: 1) Whether petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of deceased Smt. Pavithra?

2) Whether the petitioners proves that on 26.03.2011 at about 5.15 a.m., when the deceased was traveling in Scorpio car bearing No.KA 51 TR 3067 on NH-4, Kolara – Mulbagilu Road, near Kamanuru village, Mulbagilu, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-40-F-221 came from opposite side at high speed and in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against Scorpio car and due to the impact the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom?

4) What order or award? In MVC No.5109/2011: 1) Whether the petitioners proves that deceased M Murthy S/o late Chikkamunihanumaiah succumbed to the injuries sustained in road traffic accident that took place on 26.3.2011 at about 5.15 a.m., on NH.4, Kolara – Mulbagilu Road, near Kamanuru village, Mulbagilu, due to actionable negligence of the driver of KSRTC Rajahamsa bus bearing No.KA 40 – F – 221?

2) Whether petitioners prove that they are the LRs. Of the deceased?

3) Whether respondent proves that the petition is bad for non – joinder of necessary parties?

4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom?

5) What order or award? In MVC No.5110/2011: 1) Whether petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of deceased Gagan?

2) Whether the petitioners proves that on 26.3.2011 at about 5.15 a.m., when the deceased was traveling in Scorpio car bearing

No.KA 51 TR 3067 on NH.4, Kolara – Mulbagilu Road, near Kamanuru village, Mulbagilu, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA – 40 –F 221 came from opposite side at high speed and in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against Scorpio car and due to the impact the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom?

4) What order or award?

bus, A Gangadri was examined as RW.1, while the officer of the Insurance Company, Krishna Raj was examined as RW.2. The respondents produced 5 documents which were marked as EXs.R1 to R5.

Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.2 : Partly in affirmative.

Issue No.3 : As per the final order,

In MVC No.3796/2011:

Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative.

Issue No.4 : As per the final order,

In MVC No.3797/2011

Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative.

Issue No.4 : As per the final order.

In MVC No.3836/2011

Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative.

Issue No.4 : As per the final order.

In MVC No.5109/2011

Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.3 : In the negative.

Issue No.4 : Partly in affirmative.

Issue No.5 : As per the final order.

In MVC No.5110/2011

Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.

Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative.

Issue No.4 : As per the final order.

appeals by seeking reversal of the finding on the question of negligence by contending that the driver of the KSRTC bus was negligent by 100% and for exoneration of the driver of the Scorpio vehicle and by seeking enhancement of compensation. While the KSRTC and insurer have filed their respective appeals alleging that the entire negligence was on the driver of the Scorpio vehicle and the driver of the KSRTC respectively and seeking exoneration of the driver of their respective vehicles.

No.4 was under formation. It was known that there would be diversions wherever indicated. That the Scorpio vehicle was proceeding from Bengaluru towards Mulbagilu, while the KSRTC bus was proceeding in the opposite direction from Mulbagilu towards Bengaluru. That the KSRTC bus had to take a diversion on account of the closure of the road and therefore it had to proceed towards the side on which the Scorpio vehicle was moving. While doing so, the driver of the KSRTC bus did not take care to ensure that the vehicles, particularly, the Scorpio vehicle which was proceeding past did so and thereafter take the left turn to proceed on the road which was meant for the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. He contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus in coming on the wrong side of the road as that it was inevitable for the driver to do so on account of the closure of the road between Mulbagilu and Bengaluru. But after taking the diversion and turning towards the side of the road where the Scorpio vehicle was proceeding, the bus had to proceed on the left side of the road, instead the bus driver not being conscious of the fact that he was proceeding on the wrong side of the road which was

inevitable on account of the diversion drove fast and dashed against the oncoming Scorpio vehicle. That the photographs at EX.R2 would clearly indicate that the right side of the bus was damaged and it had hit against the front of the Scorpio vehicle. That had the driver of the bus proceeded on the left side of the said road after taking the diversion, the accident could have been avoided. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fastened liability on the driver of the bus to an extent of 100% rather than apportioning the liability to an extent of 70% on the driver of the KSRTC bus and 30% on the driver of the Scorpio vehicle. He submitted that the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal may be modified and 100% negligence may be apportioned on the driver of the KSRTC bus.

ought to have noted the fact that it was inevitable for the KSRTC bus to take a diversion and proceed on the road on which the Scorpio vehicle was proceeding on account of the closure of the road. That having noted the fact that the bus had taken a diversion, the driver of the Scorpio vehicle ought to have given sufficient space for the bus to move on the said road by proceeding towards its left, but instead the driver of the Scorpio vehicle proceeded as if there was no oncoming vehicle and did not take steps or take care to avoid the accident, resulting in the driver of the KSRTC bus inevitably colliding with the Scorpio vehicle.

the Tribunal may be modified and 100% negligence may be apportioned on the driver of the Scorpio vehicle.

vehicles, such as the Scorpio vehicle in the instant case. Instead, the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner while taking the diversion and without giving any space to the ongoing vehicles such as the Scorpio vehicle in the instant case, which was proceeding in the opposite direction, dashed against it resulting in five death and one injury case.

(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in apportioning negligence to an extent of 70% on the driver of the KSRTC bus and 30% on the driver of the Scorpio vehicle ?

(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to additional compensation?

(3) What order?

the road. Therefore, the question that would arise in these cases is, as to, whether, the negligence would have been completely on the part of the driver of the vehicle which took a diversion and proceed on the other side of the road as the KSRTC bus in the instant case or there would also be a duty cast on the vehicles which would be coming on the other side of the road from the opposite direction to give space to the vehicles which had taken a diversion. The question is whether any duty was cast on the driver of the Scorpio vehicle in the instant case which could have resulted in avoidance of the incident in question.

in the instant case was filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus, but the said fact is not conclusive on the point. What is to be determined is, as to whether there was duty and care exercised by the respective drivers, namely, the driver of the KSRTC bus and the driver of the Scorpio vehicle while proceeding on the National Highway in the instant case. No doubt, on a National Highway the vehicles move at a greater speed and a faster pace, than they would in a city, town or within village limits. But that does not mean that there is no duty to take care while proceeding on the National Highway, particularly, in the instant case where there were diversions on the highway. As already noted National Highway No.4 was under formation and in the instant case the KSRTC bus which was proceeding from Mulbagilu towards Bengaluru and had to take diversion and cross in between the median and go to the “opposite side”. The taking of the diversion by the KSRTC bus is not an act of negligence, but the manner in which the diversion was taken and thereafter as to how the bus proceeded is the subject matter of controversy. In this regard one cannot also lose sight of the fact that the Scorpio vehicle was coming from the opposite direction

and as to how the driver of the Scorpio vehicle proceeded on seeing the oncoming bus would have to be considered in the instant case.

after the KSRTC bus had taken the diversion and started moving on the road. Then the question is, as to, whether, the bus ought to have given sufficient space to the Scorpio vehicle to pass and the contra question as to whether the driver of the Scorpio vehicle on seeing the bus coming from the opposite direction after taking a diversion could have avoided the collision by taking the Scorpio vehicle to the left side of the road and given sufficient space for the bus to pass on its right side. In fact, in our view the answer to the controversy lies in the very questions that we have posed. In our view, both the driver of the KSRTC bus as well as the driver of the Scorpio vehicle could have avoided the collision. But the question is, what is the apportionment of negligence on the part of the two drivers. Of course, the Tribunal has apportioned 70% on the driver of the KSRTC bus and 30% on the driver of the Scorpio vehicle for which the reasoning is found in the judgment of the Tribunal.

the KSRTC bus nor the driver of the Scorpio vehicle proceeded on their respective left side of the road. If the driver of the KSRTC bus had proceeded on his left side, he would definitely not have dashed against the Scorpio vehicle on the right side of the bus. Similarly, if sufficient space had been given to the bus to proceed by the driver of the Scorpio vehicle on seeing the on coming bus and had taken sufficient care to allow the bus to pass by going towards left side of the road, then similarly the accident could have been avoided by the driver of the Scorpio Vehicle. Hence in our view, there is negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus as well as on the driver of the Scorpio vehicle. Of course, the Tribunal apportioned the negligence to an extent of 70% : 30%. But we find that greater negligence was on the driver of the KSRTC bus who had a grater duty to discharge on account of the diversion that the bus had to take and the bus being a passenger carrying vehicle had to proceed on the extreme left side of the road after taking the said diversion and hence the negligence on the driver of the KSRTC bus is 80%. The balance 20% negligence is on the driver of the Scorpio vehicle for the fact that the driver of the said

vehicle could have taken the vehicle to the left side of the road and avoided the accident on seeing the on coming bus. The same not having been done, resulted in a collision in the instant case. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the KSRTC bus was negligent to an extent of 70% and the driver of the Scorpio vehicle was negligent to an extent of 30% is modified as 80% : 20%. Point No.1 is accordingly answered.

MFA No.163/2014 = MVC No.3796/2011.

impugned judgment it is stated that the deceased Venkatachalapathi was working as a manager in M M Enterprises (Indane Gas Agency) and proprietor of Manjunatha Enterprises (Airtel Distributor) and he was earning Rs.66,000/- per month. The Tribunal has noted the fact that the income of the deceased was Rs.2,55,350/- per annum.

income of Rs.26,000/- per month in the income tax returns. The same has rightly not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. We find that having regard to the fact that the deceased Venkatachalapathi was the proprietor of Manjunatha Enterprises which was an Airtel distribution entity and the fact that the said business would continue to enure to the members of the family of the deceased and the income from the said business is not a stable income, but would be fluctuating over the years, the Tribunal was justified in assessing Rs.2,55,350/- which is the lowest of the annual income of the deceased. A sum of Rs.22,000/- has been deducted towards the income tax. The net income is Rs.2,33,350/-. Having regard to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% of the said income would have to be added towards future prospects. That would be Rs.93,300/-. The total annual income would thus be Rs.3,26,650/-. Since the claimants are the mother and son of the deceased, 1/3rd of the said amount has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and consequently the amount would be Rs.2,17,766/-. The deceased was aged 37 years and the appropriate

multiplier of ‘15’ would have to be added. Consequently, the compensation on the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.32,66,499/- instead of Rs.23,33,505/- awarded by the Tribunal.

consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband- wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co- operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world- over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.

The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).

As the deceased Venkatachalapathi was negligent in causing the accident to an extent of 20%, the Insurance Company is exonerated

to that extent in this appeal. Thus, the compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of deceased Venkatachalapathi, the claimant appellants in this appeal is Rs.29,25,200/-. The reassessed compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

M.F.A. No.160/2014 = MVC No.5109/2011. 40. This case pertains to the death of M. Murthy who was aged about 55 years and he was also an inmate of the Scorpio vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- only per month which is on the lower side. That he was working as a Laison Officer/Real Estate agent and was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. That PW.8 Shivakumar was examined in support of the averments made by the claimants with regard to the earnings of the deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants contend that assessment of Rs.7,000/- per month as the notional income is on the lower side and

hence the said amount would have to be enhanced. Further that the award of compensation under the conventional heads are also on the lower side and he therefore contended that compensation may be enhanced in the instant appeal.

which we think is also on the lower side. Hence, the notional income is assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month. 10% of the said amount is added towards future prospects which would make the total at Rs.11,000/-. 1/3rd of the said amount is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The amount would then be Rs.7,333/- per month, which is annualized and appropriate multiplier of 11 is applied. Thus, the compensation on the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.9,67,999/- which is rounded off to Rs.9,68,000/-, instead of Rs.5,31,300/- awarded by the Tribunal.

M.F.A. No.164/2014 = M.V.C. No. 3046/2011. 48. This appeal pertains to the injuries sustained by S.Shivakumar.

Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the compensation awarded is the lower side. He further contended that having regard to the serious injuries sustained by him which is evident from Exhibit-P3 – wound certificate, Exhibit-P7 being two Discharge summaries, inpatient / outpatient records, X-Rays and CT Scan films as per Exhibits-P49 to P55, he is entitled to additional compensation by re-assessing the permanent disability, which has been assessed by the Tribunal at 22.49%, which

is on the lower side. He contended that the appellant is entitled to additional compensation on the heads of loss of future earning capacity, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of earning during laid up period and loss of amenities, incidental charges as well as future medical expenses.

assessed the whole body disability at 22.49%. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the same is on the lower side. While, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the same is on the higher side and it ought to be reduced.

Total Rs.5,07,802/-

Total Rs. 6,64,402/-

M.F.A. No.165/2014 = M.V.C. No. 3797/2011. 58. This appeal pertains to the death of Mamatha, wife of S.Shivakumar and mother of Sanika. She was aged 25 years at the time of the accident.

Rs.30,000/- to the said amount towards escalation and 1/3rd of the said amount has been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, which we think is not a proper approach. In the circumstances, while considering Rs.5,000/- towards the expenses for engaging the help for the household chores and the same being Rs.60,000/- per year and by applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation on the said head would be Rs.10,80,000/-. It is not really loss of dependency, but a mere amount towards expediency on account of the death of the home maker. In addition, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the husband of the deceased towards loss of spousal consortium and a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded on the head of loss of parental consortium. In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation is Rs.10,80,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.11,80,000/- instead of Rs.12,21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, we find that the difference between the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the reassessed compensation is Rs.12,21,000/- - Rs.11,80,000/- = Rs.41,000/- only.

compensation in the ratio of 80:20 respectively with proportionate interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

M.F.A. No.166/2014 = M.V.C. No. 5110/2011.

compensation on the other conventional heads are also meager and therefore the compensation may be enhanced.

Post Graduation course either overseas or in India. But, the career of a bright student has been nipped in the bud. Even though he was not an earning member of the family, nevertheless having regard to his academic credentials and that he was prosecuting Bachelor of Engineering course, the notional income would have to be assessed. Normally, in such cases, the notional income assessed is Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, 40% of the said amount would have to be added towards future prospects which would be Rs.6,000/-. Thus, the notional month income would be Rs.21,000/-. The deceased was a bachelor and hence 50% of the same would have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the remaining amount would be Rs.10,500/-. The same would have to be annualized and the appropriate multiplier of 18 would have to be applied taking the compensation of Rs.22,68,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. The mother of the deceased is awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, and the sister of the deceased is awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, further sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and another Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral

expenses. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs.23,68,000/- instead of Rs.13,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The reassessed compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

M.F.A. No.167/2014 = M.V.C. No. 3836/2011. 77. This case pertains to the death of Pavithra, wife of Venkatachalapathi.

submitted that the compensation under conventional heads may also be enhanced.

(Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/-). 1/3rd of the said amount would have to be deduced towards personal expenses of the deceased and the remaining amount would be Rs.6,533/- which would have to be annualized and the appropriate multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, the total compensation under the head of loss of dependency is Rs.13,32,799/- which would be rounded of to Rs.13,32,800/-. Further a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the mother-in-law of the deceased towards loss of filial consortium (loss of love and affection) and a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the minor son of the deceased towards loss of parental consortium. In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs.14,32,800/-. The reassessed compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

Post Office, nationalized or schedule Bank deposit until he attains the age of majority. The entire compensation with proportionate interest awarded to the mother-in-law of the deceased shall be released to her after due identification.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

ykl