Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.814/2019 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7202/2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.10390/2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.10533/2018 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.814/2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
KUMARI S. MANASA BHAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, D/O S. MANOHAR BHAKTHA AND LATE SWATHI, R/AT ‘SAMRUDDI’, SOMESHWARA POST, NADPAL VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, REP. BY HER COURT GUARDIAN, SRI PRAJESH BHAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE MANJUNATHA BHAKTHA, SOMESHWARA POST, NADPAL VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK. ...APPELLANT (BY MS. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. UDAY STEELS INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, MANIPAL POST, UDUPI TALUK.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRI RAM ARCADE, UDUPI. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.03.2021. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) ****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.736/16 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT. KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.7202/2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
SUMAN SANTHOSH BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O SANTHOSH BHAT, R/AT NO.52, ANANTH NAGAR, MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK.
PRATHIBHA P. RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O PANDURANGA RAO K., R/AT NO.222, SRI RAM PURA EXTENSION, OPP: SRILAXMI VENKATGARAMANA TEMPLE, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 401.
SHALINI JAGADEESHA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O K.JAGADEESHA SHENOY, R/AT NO.2-11, SANTHE MARKETU, KOTA POST, GILIYAR, KOTA, UDUPI TALUK – 576 221.
PRAJESH BHAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJUNATGHA BHAKTHA, SOMESHWARA POST, NADPAL VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK.
KUMARI S. MANASA BHAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, D/O S. MANOHAR BHAKTHA AND LATE SWATHI, REP. BY HER COURT GUARDIAN, PRAJESH BHAKTHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJUNATHA BHAKTHA, R/AT ‘SAMRUDDI’, SOMESHWARA POST, NADPAL VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK. ...APPELLANTS (BY MS. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. UDAY STEELS INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, MANIPAL POST, UDUPI TALUK.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRI RAM ARCADE, UDUPI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.05.2022. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) ***
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.41/17 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT. KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.10390/2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
KUMARI S. MANASA BHAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, D/O S. MANOHAR BHAKTHA AND LATE SWATHI, R/AT ‘SAMRUDDI’, SOMESHWARA POST, NADPAL VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, REP. BY HER COURT GUARDIAN, SRI PRAJESH BHAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJUNATHA BHAKTHA, SOMESHWARA POST, NADPAL VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK – 575 001. ...APPELLANT (BY MS. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. UDAY STEELS INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, MANIPAL POST, UDUPI TALUK – 576 201.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRI RAM ARCADE, UDUPI – 576 201. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.05.2025. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) ****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.736/16 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT. KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.10533/2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
KUMARI S. MANASA BHAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, D/O S. MANOHAR BHAKTHA AND LATE SWATHI, R/AT ‘SAMRUDDI’, SOMESHWARA POST, NADPAL VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, REP. BY HER COURT GUARDIAN, SRI PRAJESH BHAKTHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE MANJUNATHA BHAKTHA, SOMESHWARA POST, NADPAL VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK – 574 104. ...APPELLANT (BY MS. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. UDAY STEELS INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANIPAL, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, MANIPAL POST, UDUPI TALUK – 576 101.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRI RAM ARCADE, UDUPI – 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.05.2025. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) ****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.735/16 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT. KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT All these appeals are arising out of the same accident occurred on 07.12.2014. Though the learned Judge of the Tribunal passed the separate orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties all these appeals are taken up together for final disposal.
These appeals are filed by the claimant/s seeking enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2017 arising out of MFA No.814/2019 arising out of MVC No.736/2016, MFA No.7202/2018 arising out of MVC No.41/2017, MFA No.10390/2018 arising out of MVC No.734/2016 and MFA No.10533/2018 arising out of MVC No.735/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala awarding total compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of Kumari Sanjana @ Sowmya, Rs.3,01,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of Manorama Bhaktha,
Rs. 12,34,860/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of Swathi Bhaktha mother of the claimant and Rs.24,10,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of Manohar Baktha.
It is contended that the deceased Manohar Bhaktha was proceeding on Hundai I-10 car bearing registration No.KA-20-N-7847 on 07.12.2014 along with his wife Swathi Bhakta, daughter Sanjana @ Sowmya, mother Manorama Bhakta and the claimant- Manasa and when they reached near Padigaru Kaimkamba of Perdoor Village, Udupi Taluk, at that time, a TATA MGV lorry bearing registration No.KA- 20-C-9236 came from Hebri towards Udupi in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the car and the lorry dragged the car to the extent of 100 meters from the spot. As a result, the father of the claimant i.e., Manohar Bhakta sustained injuries and died on his way to the Hospital and he was
running a Tourist Hotel at Someshwara Town in the name and style of Hotel Mayura and was earning Rs.3,000/- per day and spent Rs.60,000/- towards obsequies ceremonies of the deceased.
It is also contended that due to the accident, claimant-Manasa lost her father – Manohar Bhakta, mother - Swathi Bhaktha, sister - Kum. Sanjana @ Sowmya and grand mother - Smt. Manorama Bhaktha and also contended that the claimant’s mother Swathi Bhaktha was helper in the hotel run by her husband Manohar Bhaktha. Thereby separate claim petitions were filed in respect of four deaths in the family.
In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry – respondent No.1 in all the cases remained absent and was placed exparte.
Respondent No.2-insurance company in all cases appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petitions and admitted the fact that the offending vehicle was insured with the company at the relevant point of time and further contended the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged incident and sought to dismiss the claim petition.
Claimant/s in order to substantiate the case, examined guardian of claimant as PW.1 in all the cases and got marked several documents. On the other hand, respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence and only got marked document at Ex.R.1 – Insurance Policy.
The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings, evidence, the oral and documentary evidence on
record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA MGV lorry bearing registration No.KA-20-C-9236 and as a result, caused death of Manohar Bhaktha, Swati Bhaktha, Sanjana @ Sowmya and Manorama Bhaktha and further held the claimant/s are entitled for compensation and fastened the liability upon the insurance company. Accordingly, the Tribunal by separate judgment and award dated 29.11.2017 awarded the compensation of Rs.4,05,000/-, Rs.3,01,000/-, Rs. 12,34,860/- and Rs.24,10,000/- in MVC Nos.736/2016, 41/2017, 734/2016 and 735/2016 respectively with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Being unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal being on the lower side, the claimants filed these present appeals.
Insurance company has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgments and award passed by the Tribunal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
Learned counsel Ms. Nazeefa M. Mulla for Sri. Pavan Chandra Sheety, learned counsel for the appellant/s contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. in the case of Kum. Sanjana @ Sowmya - sister of the claimant (MVC No.736/2016) is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. It is further contended that in respect of Manorama Bhaktha – grand mother of the claimant (MVC No.41/2017) the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/- per month, which is
contrary to the materials on record and cannot be sustained and same needs to be enhanced as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru as the accident occurred in the year 2014 and the award of compensation under the various heads is also on the lower side. It is further contended that in respect of Swathi Bhaktha – mother of the claimant (MVC No.734/2016) the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and the compensation awarded in respect of other heads is on the lower side. It is further contended that the Tribunal has taken 30% towards future prospects, which is contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 ACJ 2700] (Pranay Sethi) and the Tribunal ought to have been taken at 40% towards future prospects.
Thereby, the claimant is entitled for further enhancement. She would further contend that in the case of Manohar Bhaktha – father of the claimant (MVC No.735/2016), the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.15,000/- ignoring the fact that deceased was running a hotel and was earning Rs.3,000/- per day and to evidence the same, claimant has produced the documents at Exs.P.27 to 29, which clearly shows that deceased was earning Rs.16,842/- per month. That the Tribunal is erred in taking 30% towards future prospects instead of 40% as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and the award of compensation under the other heads, is on the lower side. Therefore, she sought to allow the appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel Smt. Manjula N. Tejaswi for the insurance company while justifying
the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has contended that in the case of Kum. Sanjana @ Sowmya (MVC No.736/2016) the deceased was aged about 6 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and the award of compensation under other heads is much on the higher side and there is no question of enhancement in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 134 (Rajendra Singh). She would further contend that in the absence of documents produced to prove the income of the deceased i.e., Manorama Bhaktha and Swathi Bhaktha, the Tribunal was justified in taking the
income at Rs.5,500/- and Rs.7,000/- per month respectively. She would further contend that in the case of Manohar Bhaktha though the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per day, no documents have been produced except oral statement and the Tribunal considering all the material documents including income tax returns has rightly taken the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month and considering the age of the deceased, has rightly added 30% towards future prospects. Thereby, the Tribunal is justified in awarding total compensation of Rs.24,10,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses, 50% ought to have deducted as there is sole dependant. Therefore, the claimants are
not entitled for further enhancement and sought to dismiss the appeals.
In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for consideration in the present appeal are: “1. Whether the claimant in MFA No.814/2019 has made out a case for further enhancement in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 2. Whether the claimants in MFA No.7202/2018, 10390/2018 and 10533/2018 have made out a case for further enhancement in the facts and circumstances of the present case?”
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on records carefully.
It is an undisputed fact that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA MGV lorry bearing registration No.KA-20-C-9236, the deceased persons succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 07.12.2014,. The same is evidenced from the material documents produced by the claimants i.e., Ex.P.1 - copy of the FIR, Ex.P.2 – copy of the complaint and Ex.P.9 - copy of the Charge Sheet. Due to the impact, the deceased namely Manohar Bhaktha, Manorama Bhaktha, Swathi Bhaktha and Kum. Sanjana @ Sowmya have succumbed to the injuries and Manasa Bhaktha- claimant had sustained injuries. Admittedly, the charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional police in the official capacity has not been challenged either by the owner of the offending vehicle or by the insurance company.
It is also not in dispute that the claimants have produced Income Tax Returns at Exs.P.27 and 28 and also PAN card at Ex.P.29 to show that the deceased has paid total income tax of Rs.2,02,110/- p.a. 18. The Tribunal while considering the claim of the claimant in MVC No.736/2016 has come to the conclusion that the deceased Sanjana @ Sowmya was aged about 6 years at the time of the accident. Taking into consideration the age, notional income of Rs.3,000/- and 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- under the head loss of dependency.
Though learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh at paragraph Nos.14 and 15 held as under:-
“14. The income of the minor girl child is incapable of precise fixation. We find no reason to interfere with the assessed notional income of the second deceased. In R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal6 considering grant of future prospects for the deceased child aged about 10 years it was observed as flows: (SCC p.14, paras 32-33) “32. A forceful submission has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant claimants that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court7 failed to consider the claims of the appellants with regard to the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the courts below. 33. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in such submission that he courts below have overlooked that aspect of the matter while granting compensation. It is well-settled legal principal that in additional to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be grated with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent
upon the courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation.” 15. In new India Assurance Co. Ltd. V.Satender8, the deceased victim of the accident was a nine year old school-going child. Considering the claim for loss of future prospects in absence of a regular income, it was observed that the compensation so determined had to be just and proper by a judicious approach and not fixed arbitrarily or whimsically. The uncertainties of a young life were noticed in the flowing terms: (SCC p.64, para 12) “12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increased in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated b basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the
income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.”
Thereby, the claimants have not made out a case for further enhancement in the case of Kum. Sanjana @ Sowmya.
In the case of Manorama Bhaktha (MVC No.41/2017), the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/- per month ignoring the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2014. In the absence of any document to show the actual income of the deceased, as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority for the accident that occurred in the year 2014, the notional income to be taken is at Rs.8,500/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased as 64 years, 50% of the income towards personal expenses needs to be deducted, which comes to Rs.4,250/- and
the applicable multiplier is 7. Thus, a sum of Rs.3,57,000/- is arrived at towards loss of dependency (4,250 x 12 x 7 = Rs.3,57,000/-). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of love and affection, Funeral Expenses and Conveyance respectively and the same is unaltered. Thereby, the claimant has made out a case for further enhancement in MFA No.7202/2018.
In the case of Swathi Bhaktha (MVC No.734/2016) the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month ignoring the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2014 and the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- per month as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The Tribunal has erroneously taken 30% towards future prospects ignoring the age of the
deceased and the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi stated supra 40% towards future prospects needs to be considered, which amounting to Rs.3,400/- totaling Rs.11,900/-) and 1/3rd of actual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009)6 SCC 121] (Sarla Verma). Thus, the notional income would be Rs.7,933/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 33 years, the multiplier applicable is ‘16’. Thus, a sum of Rs.15,23,136/- is arrived at towards loss of dependency (7,933 x 12 x 16 = 15,23,136/-). The claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi. Thereby, the claimant has made out a case for further enhancement in MFA No.10390/2019.
In the case of Manohar Bhaktha (MVC No.735/2016) though he was running a hotel and earning Rs.3,000/- per day, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month ignoring the documents produced by the claimant that the deceased had paid income tax of Rs.2,02,110/- for the year 2014-15 as per Exs.P.27 and 28, which comes to Rs.16,842/- per month. The Tribunal has erroneously taken 30% towards future prospects ignoring the age of the deceased and in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi stated supra 40% towards future prospects needs to be considered, which amounts to Rs.6,737/- totaling Rs.23,579/-) and 1/3rd of actual income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma. Thus, the notional income would be Rs.15,720/-. Considering the age of the deceased as
40 years, the multiplier applicable is ‘15’. Thus, a sum of Rs.28,29,600/- is arrived at towards loss of dependency (15,720 x 12 x 15 = 28,29,600/-). The claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi. Thereby, the claimant has made out a case for further enhancement in MFA No.10533/2018.
Admittedly, in the present case, the insurance company has not preferred appeal either challenging the liability or the quantum including 1/3rd deduction made by the Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- insurance company is rejected.
Thereby the Tribunal has erroneously awarded the lesser compensation. For the reasons stated above, point No.1 raised in MFA No.814/2019 is
answered in Negative holding that the claimant has not made out a case for further enhancement. Claimant/s in MFA Nos.7202/2018, 10390/2018 and 10533/2018 have made out a case for further enhancement. Accordingly, point No.2 raised in the above appeals is answered in partly affirmative.
On reassessing the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants/claimants in MFA No.7202/2018, MFA No.10390/2018 and MFA No.10533/2018 are entitled for just compensation under different heads as under: Heads of Compensation
MFA No. 7202/2018 (Amount in Rs.) MFA No.10390/2018 (Amount in Rs.) MFA No.10533/2018 (Amount in Rs.) Loss of dependency 3,57,000.00 15,23,136.00 28,29,600.00 Conventional heads 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 Total 4,27,000.00 15,93,136.00 28,99,600.00 Award of Tribunal 3,01,000.00 12,34,860.00 24,10,000.00 Enhanced compensation 1,26,000.00 3,58,276.00 4,89,600.00
In the result, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.814/2019 is dismissed. ii. The appeal filed by the claimant/s in MFA Nos.7202/2018, 10390/2018 and 10533/2018 are allowed in part. iii. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala in MVC Nos.736/2016 stands unaltered. iv. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala in MVC Nos.41/2017, 734/2016 and 735/2016 are hereby modified. v. The claimants in MFA No. 7202/2018 is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.4,27,000/- as against Rs.3,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. vi. The claimant in MFA No.10390/2018 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.15,93,136/- as against Rs.12,34,860/- and in MFA No.10533/2018 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.28,99,600/- as against Rs.24,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. vii. The claimant/s are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,26,000/-, Rs.3,58,276 and Rs.4,89,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. v. Insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order with proportionate interest. vi. The apportionment, deposit and release of compensation amount as per the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. vii. Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records forthwith. viii. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
MBM