This is a Miscellaneous First Appeal against an award of compensation in a motor accident case. The High Court held that the compensation quantum was too low and enhanced it by applying recent Supreme Court precedents regarding multiplier and notional income.
Enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,33,000/- awarded with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2904 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
NO. 74, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 022. (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING, REG. NO. KA-09-HQ-7146)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:12.12.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.30.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1484/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
By consent of learned counsel for both sides, the matter
is taken up for final disposal, though it is posted for orders.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
30.03.2019 passed in MVC No.1484/2018 by the learned IV
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
Additional District Judge and MACT, Mysuru, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners came to be allowed in part and awarded compensation of Rs.12,62,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a., petitioners/appellants herein have filed this appeal urging various grounds .
convenience.
That on 28/10/2018 at about 6.30 p.m. near Model house, Adipampa road junction, Valmiki Road, Mysuru, when the Nagaraju @ Ningappa (deceased) was proceeding by walk to go to his home after finishing work, the rider of Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09-HQ-7146 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, due to which, he fell down and sustained severe injuries to his head and
other parts of the body. Immediately he was taken to Brindavan Hospital, Mysuru, but inspite of best treatment given by the doctors, the condition of the deceased
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
deteriorated and he succumbed to injuries on the same day.
The petitioners being the wife and children of deceased have lost the love and affection and he was the only earning member of their family. Prior to the accident, deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 55 years, and was working as Coolie and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and was maintaining his family members. Now, the petitioners are in difficulty to maintain their livelihood as they were depending upon the income of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle in question, as such the respondents who are owner and insurer of the motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
he denied the averments made in Para 3,4,6, 8 to 13, 22 and 23 of the petition as false and that petitioners be put to strict proof of the same. Specifically, he deny the age, occupation and income of the deceased. However, he contended that he was riding the bike slowly and cautiously, he had valid Driving license and bike was insured with the 2nd respondent -Insurance company as such he is not liable to pay compensation and that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and baseless. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
objection statements denied that averments made in Col. No. 3,4,6,8(a), 9 to 14, and 22 of the petition as false and that petitioners be put to strict proof of the same. Further, it has contended that the petitioners have to produce legal heirship certificate and also deny the age, occupation and income of the deceased and amount spent towards treatment provided prior to death. It has further contended that the rider of the motorbike was not having valid and effective
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
driving license as on the date of accident and the motor cycle was not insured with the company as on the date of accident and as such, it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and also contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
herself as PW1, and marked Exs.P1 to P15. Respondents did not adduce or produce any oral or documentary evidence except the Ex.R1-policy, which is marked with consent.
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
| Towards loss of dependency |
financial Rs. |
10,92,000/- |
|---|---|---|
| Loss of love and affection | Rs. | 1,00,000/- |
| Loss of consortium | Rs. | 40,000/- |
| Loss of estate | Rs. | 15,000/- |
| Loss of funeral expenses | Rs. | 15,000/- |
| Total | Rs. | 12,62,000/- |
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
into the question as to whether the insurance company is liable or not. As on date of the accident, the policy was in force and as such, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation.
1 AIR 2017 SC 5157
2 (2022) 2 SCC 767
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
and funeral expenses at an interval of every 3 years, as held in
the case of Pranay Sethi . It was observed as below:
“6. In Pranay Sethi, this Court has awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The said Judgment of the Constitution Bench was pronounced in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 10% enhancement. Rs.16,500/- is awarded towards loss of estate and conventional expenses and Rs.44,000/is awarded towards spousal consortium. We do not find any reason not to apply the enhancement of 10% to the case on hand.”
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3 a sum of Rs.44,000/- each has
to be granted to Petitioners No.1 to 3. Further they are also entitled for a sum of Rs.16,500/- under the each head of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
18. Thus, the compensation is reassessed as below:
| Towards loss of financial dependency |
Rs. 14,30,000/- |
|---|---|
| Loss of consortium and loss of love and affection |
Rs. 1,32,000/- |
| Loss of estate | Rs. 16,500/- |
| Loss of funeral expenses | Rs. 16,500/- |
| Total | Rs. 15,95,000/- |
| Less: awarded by the Tribunal | Rs. 12,62,000/- |
| Enhancement | Rs. 3,33,000/- |
Tribunal, there shall be an increase of Rs.3,33,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
3 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546
MFA No. 2904 of 2021
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 30.03.2019 passed in MVC No.1484/2018 by the Tribunal is modified awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.3,33,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
(iii) The conditions of apportionment and deposit as ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.
(iv) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
tsn*
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below needs to be enhanced?
How should the enhancement of compensation be calculated in light of recent Supreme Court decisions?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.Applied¶68
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.
Rasmita Biswal and others Vs. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company LimitedRelied on¶69
Rasmita Biswal and others Vs. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited
Pranay SethiRelied on¶74
Pranay Sethi
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and othersRelied on¶78
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. KOMALA W/O. LATE. NAGARAJU @ NINGAPPA
MS. PRIYANKA D/O. LATE. NAGARAJU @ NINGAPPA
SRI. SUNILKUMAR N W/O. LATE. NAGARAJU @ NINGAPPA
SRI.SURESHA S/O. LATE. ERACHAR
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
C M JOSHI
K SOMASHEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
