Claimants appealed enhancement of compensation for death of a 56-year-old pillion rider in a road accident. The court reassessed notional income at Rs.11,000 with 10% future prospects, applied multiplier 9, added consortium heads, enhancing compensation from Rs.5,60,000 to Rs.10,21,200 with 6% interest.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1539 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H V .,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:34543 MFA No. 1539 of 2019
OPPOSITE NANJUNDESHWARA PETROL BUNK, CHITRADURGA 577 501.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.P.SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 28.11.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31/10/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1045/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
stated are that on 12.06.2017, when the deceased
Siddagangabai was returning from market on TVS XL moped as a pillion rider near Hosur Gate bridge, at that time, a Tanker bearing registration No.KA-16-C-8140 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the moped of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, and another witness as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. 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 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.560,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 56 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- by working in a Hotel.
However, the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017
SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was selfemployed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ is warranted when the deceased was between the age group of 50-60 years. The said principle shall be considered in the present case.
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.
d) Fourthly, 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 is entitled to compensation
of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.
a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established 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 just and reasonable.
d) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –
V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, husband of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.
the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
‘loss of parental consortium’.
| Compensation under different Heads |
Amount in (Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | 8,71,200 |
| Funeral expenses | 15,000 |
| Loss of estate | 15,000 |
NC: 2024:KHC:34543 MFA No. 1539 of 2019
| Loss of spousal consortium | 40,000 |
|---|---|
| Loss of Parental consortium | 80,000 |
| Total | 10,21,200 |
14. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.10,21,200/- as against Rs.560,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
e) The 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 realization, within
NC: 2024:KHC:34543 MFA No. 1539 of 2019
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
f) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount
shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
DM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the notional monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- was justified.
Whether claimants were entitled to future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium heads per Pranay Sethi and Magma.
Whether the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. was excessive.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and othersRelied on¶10
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157] · Who else cites this
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu RamRelied on¶12
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782]
Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others v. Venkateshan.V and othersFollowed¶14
MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Chandranaika
Parameshanaika
Smt. Lakshmibai
Sri Venkatesha Reddy
The New India Assurance Co Ltd
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
