In the matter of Siddalakshmamma vs Managing Director on 22 November, 2022(M.F.A.NO.6298/2017 (MV-D)) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH it is stated that this m.F.A. Is submitted pursuant to section 173 1 mv against the judgment and order dated 09/27/2016 submitted in mvc no.410/2016 in the file and supplementary minor matters, ru-11)bscga, judge, , partially allowing the petition to claim for compensation and seeking improvement 



This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and award dated 27.09.2016 passed in M.V.C. Well 410/2016 on the file of MACT., at Bengaluru (SCCH-11) (for short “the Tribunal”) challenging the amount of compensation. 


The parties are listed in their original order before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Tribunal. 


The factual matrix of the plaintiff’s case before the Tribunal is that she is the only daughter of the deceased and was dependent on her mother’s income and the mother was a basket earner earning Rs.12,000 per month. He is therefore entitled to compensation. 


To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, the respondent – KSRTC., examined one witness as R.W.1 and got the document marked as Ex.R1-Receipt of payment of interim compensation for having paid a sum of Rs.15,000/-. 


The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, assessed compensation for loss of property, loss of love and affection and carriage, funeral rites and obsequies, awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000 in all. This appeal, therefore, comes to this Court for addition. 


The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Tribunal erred in not considering the loss of dependency. In the suit, she categorically claimed that she was dependent on her mother’s income and is the only daughter. The Tribunal erred in concluding that the claimant was also carrying out work in the manufacture of baskets. The accident occurred in 2015. Therefore, the loss of dependency is not taken into account and the Tribunal’s approach itself is flawed. The tribunal also failed to award fair and reasonable compensation. It therefore requires the intervention of this court. 

  1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KSRTC., would submit that the petitioner daughter is married and cohabiting with her husband and is not dependent on her mother’s income. When considering the loss of property, the tribunal took into account the fact that she was not dependent on her mother, on the other hand, she did the basket work herself. The General Court therefore did not commit an error.



After hearing the relevant legal representative and after perusing the material available on record, she is admittedly the daughter of the deceased. No doubt she has stated in her evidence that she also does basket work and mother also does the same work and the fact that she was married and stayed with her husband is not in dispute but the fact is that the income she was earning i.e. just for subsistence; he says he also makes and manufactures baskets and this is not a permanent source of income. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. BIRENDER AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 even married sons are entitled to compensation if they do not have a certain source of income. If so, the same cannot be ruled out in applying the same to the married daughter who has made the claim and no distinction can be made between the son and the married daughter. Even here, there is no case presented to show that she had a certain source of income. When that was the case, when the mother was earning, she was dependent on her mother. The Tribunal therefore erred and this Court must consider the loss of dependency. 


After considering the material on record, particularly the postmortem report – Ex.P8 which states that the deceased mother was aged about 60 years and the accident was in the year 2015, the notional income would be Rs.9,000/-. Moon. When the postmortem reports the age as 60; in the age group of 51 to 60 years, 10% must be added to the income. If added it comes to Rs.9,900/-, after deducting 50% it comes to Rs.4,950/-, after applying the appropriate multiple of 9 the dependency loss comes to 5,34,600/- (9000 +10%=9900-50% =4950x12x9). 


In addition, the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the head of loss of love and affection and an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards the head of transport, funeral rites and obsequies. 


In view of the above discussions, I submit the following: 



(i) The appeal is allowed in part. 


      (ii) Impugned judgment and award 

               The tribunal of 27/09/2016 passed 

               M.V.C.No.410/2016 is a modified award 

compensation of Rs.6,07,600/- as against Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its execution. 

(iii) Respondents-KSRTC. is ordered to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today. 

(iv) The Registry is directed to forward the records to the appropriate tribunal forthwith. 



“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 



Click here to view the judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *