Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nagaraju

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023MFA/351/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Special Appeal regarding motor accident compensation victims of a tractor-driver tortious negligence the High Court enhanced compensation from approx Rs 13 lakhs to Rs 21 lakhs and higher respectively by applying Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines and Supreme Court allocations for future prospects and consortium without shifting liability to the trailer insurer

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.21,09,200/- and Rs.22,26,800/- respectively directed to be deposited by the insurer with interest

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Nagaraju — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2021(MV)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4214 OF 2020(MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4740 OF 2020(MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 369 OF 2021(MV)

¶9

IN MFA 351/2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX 44/45 RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560025.

¶13

(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA

¶17

BHAGYA

¶18

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O NAGARAJU

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶20

S N JANARDHAN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/O NAGARAJU ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKSOREKAYIPURA VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶21

SRI ARUN KUMAR H K MAJOR

¶22

S/O KRISHNEGOWDA NO.77, COLLEGE ROAD HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN PIN-573116.

¶23

SRI HARISH H N MAJOR

¶24

S/O NANJUNDAPPA NO.216 JANATHA HOUSE HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶25

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO.14, 2ND FLOOR MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560025

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3: SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6: NOTICE TO R4 & R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1173/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶30

SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,15,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶31

IN MFA 4214/2020

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA

¶34

BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O NAGARAJU

¶35

S N JANARDHAN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/O NAGARAJU ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKSOREKAYIPURA VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶36

…APPELLANTS

¶37

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P.S., ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

ARUN KUMAR H K MAJOR S/O KRISHNEGOWDA NO.77, COLLEGE ROAD HIRISAVE TOWN (POST AND HOBLI)

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶42

CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶43

2. THE MANAGER

¶44

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX

¶45

M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560010.

¶46

SRI HARISH H N MAJOR S/O NANJUNDAPPA NO.216 JANATHA HOUSE HIRISAVE (VILLAGE AND POST) CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶47

4. THE MANAGER

¶48

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO.14, 2ND FLOOR MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2: SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4: NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 03.11.2023)

¶51

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1173/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶52

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶53

IN MFA 4740/2020

¶54

BETWEEN:

¶55

RAMESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE SANNANANJEGOWDA

¶56

SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O RAMESH.

¶57

DIVYA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS W/O NAGARAJU ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKSOREKAYIPURA VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶58

…APPELLANTS

¶59

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P.S., ADVOCATE)

¶60

AND:

¶61

ARUN KUMAR H K MAJOR S/O KRISHNEGOWDA NO.77, J.R. COLLEGE ROAD HIRISAVE TOWN (POST AND HOBLI) CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶62

THE MANAGER

¶63

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX

¶64

M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560010.

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶66

¶67

SRI HARISH H N MAJOR S/O NANJUNDAPPA NO.216 JANATHA HOUSE HIRISAVE (VILLAGE HOBLI AND POST) CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶68

THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO.14, 2ND FLOOR MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶69

…RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2: SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4: NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 03.11.2023)

¶71

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1174/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶72

IN MFA 369/2021

¶73

BETWEEN:

¶74

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX

¶75

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶76

44/45 RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560025.

¶77

…APPELLANT

¶78

(BY SRI. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶79

AND:

¶80

RAMESH

¶81

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE SANNANANJEGOWDA

¶82

SUJATHA

¶83

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶84

W/O RAMESH.

¶85

DIVYA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS W/O NAGARAJU ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKSOREKAYIPURA VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶86

SRI ARUN KUMAR H K MAJOR S/O KRISHNEGOWDA NO.77, COLLEGE ROAD HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN PIN-573116.

¶87

SRI HARISH H N MAJOR S/O NANJUNDAPPA NO.216 JANATHA HOUSE HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.

¶88

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶89

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO.14, 2ND FLOOR MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560025 REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶90

…RESPONDENTS

¶91

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3: SRI. B.C. SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6: NOTICE TO R4 & R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶92

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1174/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, AMACT-7, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS, 13,90,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶93

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶94

JUDGMENT

¶95

MFA Nos.351/2021 and 369/2021 have been filed by the Insurance Company and MFA Nos.4214/2020 and 4740/2020 have been filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) being aggrieved by the

¶96

¶97

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶98

judgment and award dated 02.03.2020 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC Nos.1173/2019 and 1174/2019, respectively.

¶99

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 20.01.2019 at about 02.45 p.m., the deceased Nandan and Gowrish were proceeding in motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-EM-7566 on the extreme left side on Gowdgere Village (NH-75), B.M.Road, Channarayapattna Taluk, Hassan District and when they reached near Gowdgere Village, the driver of the Tractor (New) bearing Engine and Chassis No.RHD2KAA3824Mahi4750BP-MBNAAAJVAHJE00466 and attached Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-54-T-4302 which was moving ahead of the said motor cycle suddenly took right turn without following traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, both Nandan and Gowrish sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶100

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶101

The claimants filed separate petitions under Section

¶102

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶103

On service of summons, respondent Nos.1 to 4 appeared through counsel and respondent Nos.2 and 4 only filed written statement in which the averments made

¶104

in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petitions.

¶105

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-3 in MVC No.1173/2019 and examined claimant No.1

¶106

11 -

¶107

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶108

as PW-2 and another witness as PW-4 in MVC

¶109

No.1174/2019 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. On behalf of respondents, three witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants in MVC No.1173/2019 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.13,15,200/- and the claimants in MVC No.1174/2019 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.13,90,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals haves been filed.

¶110

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶111

IN RESPECT OF NEGLIGENCE IN ALL THE APPEALS

¶112

The learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company (Tractor) has contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the Tractor and Trailer. Both the vehicles have been insured by the different Insurance Companies. The Tribunal has erred in holding that the insurer of Tractor alone is liable to indemnify the insured. She further contended that the Tractor can be fly on the public road only if it is attached to the Trailer, then only it becomes a transport vehicle i.e. goods vehicle. Since the accident is occurred in the public road, the liability has to be fastened on both the insurers of the Tractor and Trailer. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. D. LAXMAN AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4355.

¶113

Learned counsel appearing for the Sriram General Insurance Company Limited (Trailer) has contended that

¶114

13 -

¶115

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶116

the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the Tractor alone and Trailer was not involved in the accident. Just because the Trailer attached to the Tractor, the liability cannot be fixed on the insurer of the Trailer. He further contended that the judgment relied upon by the appellant/Insurance Company is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, this Court has considered that if the Trailer is attached to the Tractor, it can be called as a transport vehicle and to claim the liability, both Tractor and Trailer have to be insured. Hence, he contended that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the parties, has rightly fastened the liability on the insurer of the Tractor alone.

¶117

The case of the claimants is that on 20.01.2019 at about 02.45 p.m., the deceased Nandan and Gowrish were proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA13-EM-7566 on the extreme left side on Gowdgere Village (NH-75), B.M.Road, Channarayapattna Taluk, Hassan District and when they reached near Gowdgere Village, the

¶118

14 -

¶119

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶120

driver of the Tractor (New) bearing Engine and Chassis No.RHD2KAA3824Mahi4750BP-MBNAAAJVAHJE00466 and attached Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-54-T-4302, which was moving ahead of the said motor cycle suddenly took right turn without following traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, both Nandan and Gowrish sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the complaint has been lodged against the driver of the Trailer as per Ex.P2, FIR has been filed as per Ex.P1 and charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the Trailer as per Ex.P8.

¶121

9. The specific case of the claimants is that the driver of

¶122

the Tractor was moving ahead of the motorcycle and suddenly took right turn without following traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the Motor Cycle. Even Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Complaint, Ex.P3-Spot Mahazar, Ex.P4Sketch, Ex.P5-IMV Report clearly shows that the Tractor

¶123

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶124

15 -

¶125

dashed to the motorcycle and Trailer is not involved in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly given a finding that the insurer of Tractor alone is liable to pay the compensation. In the judgment relied upon by the insurer of the Tractor in the case of ‘ D. LAXMAN’ (Supra), this Court has held as follows:

¶126

“[A] MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988-SECTIONS 2(14) AND 2(47)- DEFINATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER-WHETHER THE DEFINITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE INCLUDES A TRAILER-HELD, A combined reading of the definitions under Section 2(14) and 2(47) of the Act shows, that the definition of ‘Motor Vehicle’ includes any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer-Even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor-Trailer would constitute a ‘goods carriage’ under Section 2(14) of the Act and consequently, a “transport vehicle” under Section 2(47) of the Act.

¶127

[B] MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988-SECTION 146 AND 147-Requirement of policies and limits of liability under-Accident-Death and injury-Trailer attached to tractor not covered by insurance policy-Whether the

¶128

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶129

insurance company can be made liable to pay the compensation in respect of coolies carried in a vehicle-HELD, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, both the Tractor and the Trailer requires to be registered separately-In order to claim compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, the trailer is also requires to be insured as required under Section 146 of the Act- Therefore, that the coolies carried in a trailer which is not covered by a insurance policy, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.”

¶130

Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the

¶131

Insurance Company of the Tractor is not applicable to the facts of these cases. There is no error in the finding given by the Tribunal in respect of liability is concerned.

¶132

RE : QUANTUM IN MFA No.4214/2020

¶133

The learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company (Tractor) has raised the following countercontentions:

¶134

17 -

¶135

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶136

a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as a driver, except producing driving licence of the deceased, they have not produced any other documents to prove the same. But the notional income assessed by the Tribunal Rs.9,000/- is on higher side.

¶137

b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established

¶138

the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’. c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the appeals filed by the claimants.

¶139

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶140

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as driver

¶141

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶142

18 -

¶143

and they have also produced the driving licence to prove the same. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/-.

¶144

b) Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶145

c) Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeals filed by the claimants.

¶146

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶147

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Except producing driving licence, they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of

¶148

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶149

income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2019, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

¶150

in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS

¶151

[AIR 2017 SC 5157] . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.19,600/-. Since the deceased was bachelor at the time of the accident, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.9,800/-. The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,99,200/-

¶152

(Rs.9,800 1217) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶153

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶154

20 -

¶155

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

¶156

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶157

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶158

the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶159

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶160

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	19,99,200
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	80,000
Total	21,09,200

¶161

21 -

¶162

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶163

RE : QUANTUM IN MFA No.4740/2020

¶164

The learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance

¶165

Company (Tractor) has raised the following countercontentions:

¶166

a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.14,500/- per month by working as a Technician in Pyome Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., they have not produced any other documents to prove the same. But the notional income assessed by the Tribunal Rs.9,000/- is on higher side.

¶167

b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶168

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the appeals filed by the claimants.

¶169

22 -

¶170

NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶171

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶172

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.14,500/- per month by working as a Technician in Pyome Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/-.

¶173

¶174

c) Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeals filed by the claimants.

¶175

23 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶176

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶177

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶178

The claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.14,500/- per month. They have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2019, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL

¶179

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC

¶180

5157] . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.19,600/-. Since the deceased was bachelor at the time of the accident, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.9,800/-. The deceased was

¶181

24 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶182

aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.21,16,800/(Rs.9,800 1218) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶183

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶184

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶185

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶186

25 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶187

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	21,16,800
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	80,000
Total	22,26,800

¶188

In the result, I pass the following order:

¶189

ORDER

¶190

a) The appeals are disposed of.

¶191

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶192

c) The claimants in MFA No.4214/2020 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,09,200/- as against Rs.13,15,200/- and the claimants in MFA No.4740/2020 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.22,26,800/- as against Rs.13,90,800/-awarded by the Tribunal.

¶193

d) The Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

¶194

26 - NC: 2023:KHC:39115 MFA No. 351 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4214 of 2020 MFA No. 4740 of 2020 MFA No. 369 of 2021

¶195

realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶196

e) The amount in deposit if any, shall be transmitted to

¶197

the Tribunal.

¶198

Sd/JUDGE

¶199

HA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayanthi Vs Keshavamurthy N

Subramanya Bhat Vs Dinesh Shetty

Smt Savithramma Vs P Krishnamurthy

Sri P G Anand Vs Sri S P Belliyappa

Sri Guruprasad Vs Sri S P Belliyappa

Deju Shetty Vs Veeresh R K