MRS MARY SEQUEIRA vs SRI CHIDAMBARAM
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9574 OF
2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS MARY SEQUEIRA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O LATE BONAVENTURE SEQUIERA,
2. MIS. SONIA SEQUEIRA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O LATE BONAVENTURE SEQUIERA,
3. MIS. RESHMA MARIYA SEQUEIRA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
D/O LATE BONAVENTURE SEQUIERA,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NIDDEL HOUSE,
NO.51, ALAPE, PADIL POST,
MANGALURU.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANOJ M, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. VEENA T N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. CHIDAMBARAM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O MUTHU SWAMY,
R/AT NEAR PARAGATHI HOSPITAL,
BOLWAR MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
PUTTUR,
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DR. SANKARAN ROAD,
NAMAKKAL – 637 001,
REP. BY ITS DIV OFFICER AT MANGALURU,
RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX,
KODIALBAIL,
MANGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 08.07.2025, NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE PETITION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN
MVC NO.220/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MANGALURU; AND ETC
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is by the appellants/claimants
challenging the Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2018,
passed in MVC No.220/2016 by the III Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as the
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the
learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the
appellants/claimants in a sum of Rs.14,10,800/-, along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of the petition till its realisation.
2. The challenge in the present appeal has been filed
by the appellants/claimants.
3. By an order dated 25.9.2024, a delay of 1300 days
in filing the recalling application was condoned subject
to condition that if the appellants/claimants succeed in
the appeal, no interest shall be awarded on the
enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing
the recalling application.
4. The facts in the appeal are not in dispute. The
claim petition was filed by the mother and sisters of the
deceased, a 21 year old boy who died in a road traffic
accident happened on 20.09.2015. The learned
Tribunal, after examining the evidence found the rash
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
and negligent driving to be proved and also found that
the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner. In order to calculate
loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal took the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. and
added 40% future prospects, deducted 50% for
personal expenses since the deceased was a bachelor.
Thus, the loss of dependency was calculated as follows:
(Rs.9,000/- + 40% = Rs.12,600/-
Rs.12,600/- - ½ = Rs.6,300/-
Rs.6,300/-x12x18) = Rs.13,60,800/-
5. In addition, the learned Tribunal has awarded
amounts for loss of love and affection, loss of estate and
transportation of dead body and performance of
obsequies ceremony in the following manner:
Sl.No. Heads Amounts (Rs.)
01 Loss of dependency 13,60,800-00
02 Transportation of dead
body and performance of 15,000-00
obsequies ceremony
03 Loss of love and affection 20,000-00
04 Loss of estate 15,000-00
Total 14,10,800.00
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
5.1 Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded the total
compensation of Rs.14,10,800/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date
of realization.
6. The challenge in the present appeal has been
made by the appellants/claimants on four grounds.
Firstly, it was contended that despite producing a salary
slip and evidence of the employer, notional income was
taken by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, it was
contended that given the settled legal position in Sarla
Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
1
and Another , deduction for dependency should have
rd
been 1/3 and not 1/2 since the deceased was
supporting his mother and two sisters. Thirdly, it was
contended the amount awarded for loss of consortium
was not in accordance with the settled legal position.
Lastly, it was contended that the interest awarded is on
the lower side given that the deceased who was 21
1
(2009) 6 SCC 121
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
years old and was working two jobs, died in a road
traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle which was insured by the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company on the other hand contends
that since appellants/claimants did not produce any
additional documents to show the salary, notional
income was rightly awarded. On the aspect of loss of
consortium, however, the learned counsel fairly
contends that the loss of consortium should be awarded
in terms of the judgment in National Insurance Co.
2
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi case. Secondly, learned
counsel contends that even if the first salary slip is
examined, the second salary slip must be ignored.
8. This Court has examined the Trial Court Record.
The witnesses that were produced by the claimants
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
were P.W.1 who was petitioner No.2, P.W.2, an
eyewitness, PW.3 and 4, employers of the deceased. In
addition, two salary certificates being Exs.P10 and P11
were also marked by the learned Tribunal. The learned
Tribunal, however, held that from perusal of the
documents, the exact earning of the deceased is not
quite clear.
9. This Court is unable to agree. An examination of
both the evidence as well as the statement of the
employers clearly reflects that the deceased was
working two jobs and earning to support his family.
Ex.P10 is the Salary Certificate issued by the Royal
Electricals, Mangalore, dated 13.01.2016. It states that
deceased was working in his firm for the last three years
and was paying the deceased Rs.20,000/- p.m. The
relevant extract is below:
“ This is to certify that Mr. Joyson Noel Sequeira,
S/o Late Bonaventure Sequeira, aged about 21
years resident of Niddel prashanthnagar,
Alape, Padil post, Mangalore, was working as
Electrician in our firm since three years and we
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
were paying a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.Twenty Thousands only).
He was very hard and sincere worker.
This certificate has been issued upon his mother’s
request.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. Ex.P11 is dated 09.01.2016 and it is issued by
M/s Rego Caterers wherein it is stated that the deceased
was working as a catering helper on part time in the
evening for the last five years and was getting
Rs.5,000/- per month. The relevant extract is below:
“To Whom So Ever it May Concern
This is to certify that Mr. Joyson Noel Sequeira,
S/o Late Bonaventure Sequeira, resident of
Niddel, Padil, Mangalore, was working as
catering helper (Part time) in the evening times
in my firm since five years and I was paying a
monthly salary Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousands
only) as remuneration for his service .
He was very sincere, hard and most obliging nature
person.
This certificate has been issued as per his mother’s
request.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. The proprietor of Royal Electricals was examined
as P.W.3. He has corroborated the contents of the salary
certificate and further stated that deceased was working
as an Electrician in his firm for last three years at a fixed
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and that he has issued
a salary certificate.
12. PW.4 who is the proprietor of M/s Rego Caterers
has also deposed in support of the salary certificate
issued by him and affirms the fact that the deceased
was being paid Rs.5,000/- per month for working part-
time in the evenings.
13. The MV Act is a beneficial legislation and the
claimant is not required to prove beyond reasonable
doubt as to his employment. The Supreme Court in
3
Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , has
also held that while dealing with compensation cases, it
is the role of the Tribunal to award just and fair
compensation and a standard of proof such as beyond
all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases,
is not requisite. It is further held by the Supreme Court
in Rajwati case that even if a salary certificate or salary
3
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
slip is not proved in evidence, the Court is not justified
in not awarding compensation on that basis. The
relevant extract is set out below:
“17. In the case of Shila Datta (Supra), this Court
held as under:—
“10. A claim petition for compensation in regard
to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in
case of death, by the dependant family
members) before the Motor Accident Claims
Learned Tribunal constituted under Section 165
of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis
in the traditional sense. It is a proceeding in
terms of and regulated by the provisions of
Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code
in itself . We may in this context refer to the following
significant aspects in regard to the Learned Tribunals
and determination of compensation by Learned
Tribunals:
…
(ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply
as the claimant is required to make an
application in a form prescribed under the Act.
In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings
are suo moto initiated by the Learned Tribunal.
…
(vi) The Learned Tribunal is required to follow such
summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose
one or more persons possessing special knowledge of
and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in
holding the enquiry (vide Section 169 of the Act).”
18. Reference in this connection may also be made
to the observations made by this Court in the case
of Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, wherein it was observed as
under:—
“It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim
cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual
occurrence of the accident, has been established,
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the
quantum of just compensation if the accident had
taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a
motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would
not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties.
Notably, while deciding cases arising out of
motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof
to be borne in mind must be of preponderance
of probability and not the strict standard of
proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is
followed in criminal cases.”
19. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata v.
Satbir, this Court observed that it is well known
that in a case relating to motor accident claims,
the claimants are not required to prove the case
as it is required to be done in a criminal trial.
The Court must keep this distinction in mind.
20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as
such, while dealing with compensation cases,
once the actual occurrence of the accident has
been established, the Tribunal's role would be
to award just and fair compensation. As held by
this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra),
strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal
trial, are not applicable in motor accident
compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of
proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance
of probability and not the strict standard of proof
beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in
criminal cases”.
21. In view of the above, we do not agree with
the view taken by the High Court while rejecting
the salary certificate (Exhibit 19) and pay slip
(Exhibit 20) of the deceased merely on the
ground that the person issuing the two
aforementioned documents was not examined
before the Learned Tribunal. The said documents
are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased
and were also corroborated by the statements of the
deceased's wife (Appellant No. 1 herein) and his co-
workers. As such, the High Court was not
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
justified in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs. 4,836/- per month on the basis
of minimum wages fixed by the State at the
relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the
findings of the Learned Tribunal so far as they
relate to assessing the deceased's income at Rs.
11,225/- per month on the basis of
aforementioned two documents. Annual income
of the deceased, therefore, amounts to, Rs. 11,225/-
× 12 = Rs. 1,34,700/-.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
14. So far as the second contention of the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
that if the first salary slip is taken into consideration,
the second salary slip must be ignored, this Court is
unable to agree with the said contention, because both
salary slips have been produced and both employers
have been examined. The deceased was working in the
day as an Electrician and thereafter working part time
in the evening in the Catering Company. This is clearly
set out in the salary slips. Thus, the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company is without any merit.
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
15. Thus, taking the salary of the deceased at
25,000/- with future prospects at 40%, and after
rd
making 1/3 deduction, the loss of dependency is re-
calculated as follows:
(Rs.25,000/- + 40% = Rs.35,000/-
rd
Rs.35,000/- - 1/3 = Rs.23,333.33
Rounded off to Rs.23,334/-
(Rs.23,333.33x12x18) = Rs.50,39,999.28
Rounded off to Rs.50,40,000/-
16. In addition, the amount awarded towards loss of
consortium would also require to be revised in terms of
the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case. Since there are
two dependents (mother and unmarried sister), the
amount towards loss of consortium would come to
Rs.96,000/- along with the escalation as follows:
(Rs.40,000 x 2=80,000/- + 20% escalation).
17. So far as interest awarded, the learned Tribunal
has granted 6% interest. This Court in in the judgment
of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Malyadri
13
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
4
M. and Others case, which has been affirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court in the judgment captioned
after analyzing the precedents of the Supreme Court
and this Court, has found that an award of 9% interest
is in accordance with the settled provisions in the
present-day scenario, especially in cases of death and
permanent disability. It was held that the award of 9%
interest has been regularly upheld by the Supreme
Court. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of
the Malyadri judgment below:
“24. Thus, an analysis of the precedents shows that
the award of interest over the last 5-10 years has
infact consistently been awarded @ 9% p.a. or
upholding such an award.
xxx xxx xxx
29. An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the
Supreme Court , reflects that the Supreme Court
has consistently held that the award of interest
is intended to recompensate the claimant for
being deprived of the use of money, which ought
to have been paid at the time of occurrence of
the accident . The rate of interest, therefore, must
be just, fair and reasonable, having regard to the
prevailing economic conditions and bank rates.
29.1. The award of interest is usually
determined at the prevailing bank rate of
4
2026 SCC Online Kar 4090
14
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
interest on a case-to-case basis and at the rate
which is just and fair and reasonable.
29.2 T here cannot be any ‘straitjacket formula’
in determining the rate of interest and that the
same must depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The guiding
principle remains that the rate must neither be
punitive nor non-existent but must strike a
balance between fairness to the claimant and
reasonableness to the insurer.
29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate
in case involving death and serious injury
especially, where there is a long delay in the
claimants receiving the compensation.
30. In the present case, the accident occurred in the
year 2016 leading to the death of the wife of
respondent No.1 and mother of respondent Nos.2 and
3. The award came to be passed in the year
2018. The learned Tribunal has deemed it
apposite to award interest on the compensation
@ 9% per annum. The award of interest is not
punitive as is fair considering the prevailing
economic condition and bank rates. In addition,
it is now 10 years since the date of the
accident.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
18. The aforesaid view has since been considered and
affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment captioned Smt.Divya. V.M. and others Vs.
5
Veerabhadrashetti. K.C. and another , wherein the
5
MFA No.3583/2020 vide order dated 30.07.2026
NC:2026:KHC:39850-DB
15
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
award of interest at 9% per annum, particularly in cases
involving death and permanent disability, has been
directed.
19. In the present case, the deceased was 21 years
old boy who was supporting his mother and sister since
he did not have father. He was working two jobs to
support his family. Given this scenario, this Court deems
it apposite to enhance the interest at 8% p.a.
20. Thus, the compensation awarded to the
petitioners/claimants is recalculated as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amounts (Rs.)
01 Loss of dependency 50,40,000-00
02 Loss of consortium
(Rs.40,000x2=Rs.80,000/- 96,000-00
+ 20% escalation
03 Funeral expenses 18,000-00
04 Loss of estate 18,000-00
Total 51,72,000.00
20.1 Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.51,72,000/- with interest at the
rate of 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its
16
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
realization, excluding the interest for the delayed period
of 1300 days.
21. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the
following directions:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2016,
passed in MVC No.220/2016 by the III Additional
Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangaluru, D.K., is
modified, awarding total compensation of
Rs.51,72,000/- along with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of petition till
realization, excluding the interest for the delayed
period of 1300 days in filing the recalling
application;
(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award
of the Tribunal remains undisturbed;
17
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55298
MFA No. 9574 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010239252018
(iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within
eight weeks from today;
(v) On such deposit of compensation, the same
shall be released in favour of the
appellants/claimants on filing of an appropriate
application for withdrawal of the enhanced amount;
(vi) The Registry is directed transmit the copy of
the judgment along with records to the learned
Tribunal forthwith.
(vii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified
Award accordingly;
(viii) All pending applications stand closed.
No order as to costs.
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
YN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
18