Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32494
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
C M JOSHI, J
SMT. MALLAMMA CHENDAKE W/O LATE SUBHASH – Appellant
Versus
SRI. YOGESHWAR S/O VIJAYKUMAR JOSHI – Respondent
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.201638 OF 2021 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL
For the Respondents: SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI
The court held that all dependents, including adult children, are entitled to compensation, adjusting personal expenses to one-third of the deceased's income.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal - The deceased died in a motor vehicle accident while returning from temple - Tribunal awarded Rs.10,31,900/- towards compensation - Petitioners contended that the deduction of 50% towards personal expenses was erroneous and all dependents are entitled to compensation. (Paras 6, 10, 12, and 30)
(B) Legal heirs and dependency - Legal representatives include major sons and married daughters for claiming compensation - Definition of legal representatives under MV Act is to be construed liberally. (Paras 13, 14, and 22)
Facts of the case:
The accident occurred on 07.04.2019 when the deceased was returning from temple on a motorcycle, which was struck by a Mahindra XUV, causing his death at the scene. The claim was filed by his wife and sons against the vehicle owner and the insurance company.
Findings of Court:
The court found the deduction for personal expenses should be 1/3rd instead of 50%, recognizing all dependents are entitled to compensation and enhancing the awarded amount.
Issues: The court addressed whether the Tribunal's deduction for personal expenses was appropriate, and whether each claimant was entitled to consortium.
Ratio Decidendi: It was concluded that the personal expenses' deduction was too high and the law entitles each dependent to compensation under the head of loss of consortium.
Result: The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the compensation to an enhancement of Rs.4,45,700/- with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and compensation claim basis. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents' denials regarding liability and compensation. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. appellants argue against personal expenses deduction. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. discussion on entitlements of dependents. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. legal interpretation of consortium entitlements. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. final decision on compensation enhancement. (Para 30 , 31) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.514/2019 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi, dated 18.03.2021, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 07.04.2019 at about 8.30 A.M., the deceased Subhash along with his grandson was returning from temple on the motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BX-7112, near Rajesh Kothe Vidyalaya, a Mahindra XUV bearing No.MH-12/JN-3003 came from Solapur road side in high speed and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased Subhash and his grandson fell down and Subhash died at the spot. The petitioners, who are the wife and the two sons of deceased Subhash filed the claim petition contending that the deceased Subhash was aged 54 years, earning Rs.15,000/- per month by coolie work and contributed the same for the welfare of the family. They contended that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased and therefore, adequate compensation be awarded from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed their written statements. The respondent No.1 denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the Mahindra vehicle, but however, the vehicle was being driven by one Vaibhav, who was having a valid driving license and as such, the liability if any, has to be fastened upon the respondent No.2.
5. The respondent No.2 denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased, alleged that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. It also contended that the driver of the Mahindra vehicle was not having a valid driving license and as such there are violations of terms and conditions of the policy.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, Ex.P1 to 14 were marked in evidence. The respondent No.2 examined its official as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,31,900/- under the following heads:
| Towards dependency and loss of future income | Rs.9.61.884/- |
| Towards Consortium 1. Spousal Consortium | Rs.40,000/- |
| Towards Loss of estate & funeral expenses | Rs.30,000/- |
| Total Compensation Rounded off | Rs.10,31,844/- Rs.10,31,900/- |
7. While coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal held that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 being the adult sons of deceased are not the dependents and as such there being only one dependent, the personal expenses of the deceased is to be taken at 50%.
8. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal have approached this Court in appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal erred in deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased Subhash and their being Catena of decisions which laid down that the married daughters and adult son are also being legal heirs, are entitled for compensation and therefore, the deduction of 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased was incorrect. He submits that the reliance of the Tribunal on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s T.Chandranaika and others in MFA No.5465/2016 was erroneous. He further submits that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is correct and only t
