Allowed

Bikash Prasad @ Vikas Prasad v. Mr Pushpak Jindal

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024MFA/1923/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents and siblings of a software engineer who died after a motorcycle accident challenged dismissal of their claim petition. The High Court held contemporaneous hospital records and an investigator's email proved the deceased was a pillion rider, fixed compensation of Rs.44,79,800 with interest at 6%, and allowed the appeal against the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.44,79,800 with 6% p.a. interest awarded; insurer directed to deposit within two months, with distribution and investment directions for claimants.

Bikash Prasad @ Vikas Prasad Vs Mr Pushpak Jindal — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1923 OF 2020

¶6

(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BIKASH PRASAD @ VIKAS PRASAD S/O JAYANANDAN PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, F/O VATSAL SETU,

¶9

SMT SUDHA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O BIKASH PRASAD @ VIKAS PRASAD, M/O LATE VATSAL SETU,

¶10

MR.SHASWAT

¶11

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O SRI BIKASH PRASAD, BRO/O LATE VATSAL SETU,

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MISS.KISLAYA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O SRI BIKAS PRASAD, SIS/O LATE VATSAL SETU,

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.105, ROAD NO.3, KATIYA BASTI, PATRATU, PATRATU RAMGARH, JARKHAND-829119.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MR PUSHPAK JINDAL S/O MAHESH CHAND JINDAL,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶21

R/O NO.54, JANAPRIYA SOCIETY, KENCHANHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-98.

¶22

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD MOTOR T P HUB, 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. S.KRISHNA KISHORE., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7949/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-7), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

On 23.12.2016, the parents and two siblings of

¶30

Vatsal Setu filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

¶31

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They stated that Vatsal Setu,

¶32

who was aged 23 years, was working as a trainee software

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶34

engineer in MPHASIS Co. and was drawing a salary of Rs.26,000/- per month. They stated that on 17.01.2012, while Vatsal Setu was riding pillion on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA01-EV-8168 owned by one Pushpak Jindal–the 1^st respondent, the subject accident occurred due to the alleged rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by Murali Manohar Thakur, by which he lost control of the vehicle and went off the road before falling into a ditch, as a result of which Vatsal Setu suffered grievous injuries and was admitted to BGS Global Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 28.01.2012.

¶35

It was stated that Vatsal Setu was admitted unconscious to the hospital and was in coma till his death, and the hospital authorities have prepared a MLC memo and sent it to the concerned police authorities. It was stated Murali Manohar Thakur had himself informed the claimants about the accident and, in light of the MLC memo, the police had visited the hospital several times and the claimants were, therefore, under an impression

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶37

that the case had been registered and was pending investigation.

¶38

It was stated that after Vatsal Setu passed away, neither the hospital authorities nor the police took any responsibility to perform an autopsy of the dead body though it was a MLC case, and the 1^st claimant paid the entire medical charges to secure the body of Vatsal Setu and took the same for cremation to their native place in Jharkhand. It was stated that, all along, the police were assuring them that they would inform the 1^st claimant about the progress of the case and the claimants, being residents of Jharkhand, were waiting for the police to inform them.

¶39

It was stated that after a period of two or three years, they came to Bengaluru to collect the documents from police and were then informed that there had been no case registered in the police station in respect of the accident/death of Vatsal Setu.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶42

It was stated that they immediately obtained legal advice and proceeded to lodge a complaint with the Kengeri police, but the Kengeri police failed to enquire into the accident properly and closed the case without submitting a chargesheet.

¶43

It may be pertinent to state here that in the claim petition it was specifically stated that Vatsal Setu was the pillion rider and this was admitted by Murali Manohar Thakur who himself had given a statement in the hospital that he was riding the motorcycle and that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion in his motorcycle.

¶44

The claimants ultimately sought for just

¶45

compensation.

¶46

The owner of the motorcycle–Pushpak Jindal, though served with notice of the claim petition, did not enter appearance and was consequently placed ex parte .

¶47

The Insurer entered appearance and filed objections contesting the matter. The Insurer filed lengthy objections

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶50

denying all assertions made in the claim petition. Though the occurrence of the accident was also not admitted, the Insurer took up a specific stand in the following terms:

¶51

“5. This respondent do not admits to have issued policy No.07050031110160030397 for the period between 27-12-2011 to 26-12-2012 in respect of Motor Cycle No.KA.01-EV-8168 in favour of first Respondent herein and the liability of the second respondent is subject to the terms, conditions exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of Sec.64 BV of the Insurance Act, 1938. However, in the present case, the second respondent company is not required to indemnify the first respondent for the reason that Mr.Vatsal Setu was riding the said Bike at the time of accident, he lost control over the same and suffered fatal injuries. Mr.Murali Manohar Thakur, was not riding the said Motor Cycle at the time of so called accident as alleged by claimants. Since the deceased alone was at fault for the cause of accident, the claim petition is liable to be rejected as the same is not maintainable in the eye of law.”

¶52

Thus, by this defence that Vatsal Sethu was riding

¶53

the motorcycle when the accident occurred, the Insurer basically admitted the accident and it only denied the

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶55

assertion that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion and took up the plea that it was Murali Manohar Thakur who was riding pillion.

¶56

The Tribunal, on consideration of pleadings and evidence adduced, has come to the conclusion that the claimants had failed to prove that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion on the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle, who was riding the motorcycle, had driven it rashly and negligently, lost control and the vehicle had gone off the road before falling into the ditch, which resulted in the death of Vatsal Setu.

¶57

The Tribunal has observed that the 1^st claimant i.e., the father of Vatsal Setu had lodged a complaint about the accident dated 17.01.2012 only on 22.11.2013 and there was a delay of 675 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal has further observed that though the 1^st claimant had come to Bengaluru on 19.01.2012 and was in Bengaluru till 28.01.2012 i.e., the day on which Vatsal Setu died, he had not chosen to lodge a complaint. The Tribunal has

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶59

taken note of Ex.P6 – the letter issued by BGS Hospital in which it was stated that Vatsal Setu suffered injuries due to a fall from the motorcycle and, therefore, no MLC was registered and the dead body was also not subjected to an autopsy.

¶60

The Tribunal has also observed that there was a lapse on the part of hospital in this regard, but it was incumbent on the claimants to have lodged a complaint immediately and no acceptable reason was forthcoming from the claimants as to what prevented them from lodging a complaint either immediately or after the death of Vatsal Setu.

¶61

The Tribunal has disregarded Ex.P.47, which

¶62

contained a statement of Murali Manohar Thakur to the effect that he was riding a motorcycle, on the ground that the claimants had not chosen to examine Murali Manohar Thakur to prove the contents of the document, though he was the material witness to prove their case.

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶64

The Tribunal has also observed that no eye witnesses were examined to speak about the occurrence of the accident and the claimants were obligated to produce substantial evidence as to whether Vatsal Setu was proceeding as a pillion rider and that Murali Manohar Thakur was riding the motorcycle rashly and negligently.

¶65

The Tribunal has reasoned that merely because the motorcycle of Pushpak Jindal was involved in the accident, that would not be a ground to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle. It ultimately concluded that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by Murali Manohar Thakur, which has resulted in the death of Vatsal Setu.

¶66

The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the claim petition. 18. Sri. Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for the claimants strenuously contended that the reasoning of the

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶69

Tribunal was seriously flawed. He submitted that when Vatsal Setu was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state and hospital records clearly indicated that he had been brought to the hospital due to the injuries suffered by him as a result of road traffic accident, the obligation to inform the police or lodge a complaint stood waived since it was the responsibility of the hospital. It was contended that in light of this particular fact, the non-lodging of complaint immediately or the delay in lodging the complaint would really be of no consequence, especially when there was clear and unimpeachable evidence that due to the accident which had occurred, grievous injuries had been sustained to Vatsal Setu, who ultimately succumbed to the same.

¶70

As regards the pleas raised by the Insurer that Vatsal

¶71

Setu was riding the motorcycle, learned counsel for the claimants sought to place reliance on the noting made in

¶72

the medical records pertaining to Vatsal Setu, which were recorded at the earliest point in time i.e., immediately

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶75

after the accident, which clearly indicated that the motorcycle was being driven by Murali Manohar Thakur and that Vatsal Setu was a pillion rider. He submitted that the hospital authorities had no reason to record an incorrect set of facts. He also submitted that, admittedly, Vatsal Setu was unconscious when he was brought to the hospital and remained unconscious till his death and, therefore, there was no probability of Vatsal Setu misleading the authorities in order to create evidence.

¶76

Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted

¶77

that in order to prove that Murali Manohar Thakur was riding the motorcycle, the medical records relating to Murali Manohar Thakur had also been secured during the course of trial and the medical records prepared at the time of admission of Murali Manohar Thakur, which was also immediately after the accident, categorically recorded that the accident occurred due to the alleged skid and fall

¶78

from the motorcycle on 17.01.2012 at about 3.10 p.m. as stated by Murali Manohar Thakur himself. He submitted

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶81

that the hospital record clearly recorded that Murali Manohar Thakur had himself stated that he was riding the motorcycle and, when he tried to take a turn, he had lost control of the vehicle and fell down due to skid. He submitted that in light of this statement recorded by the hospital authorities, the assertion of the Insurer would have to be disregarded.

¶82

Learned counsel for the claimants sought to place reliance on an investigation conducted by the Insurer of the motorcycle in relation to a claim made by Murali Manohar Thakur for reimbursement of medical expenses for the injuries suffered by him. He submitted that the information that had been sought by the claimants were not initially furnished by the Insurer and, as a consequence, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, when they filed an appeal, they had been furnished Ex.P.47, which contained an email reply by Murali Manohar Thakur to the investigator of the Insurance Company. He pointed out that in this reply email of Murali

¶83

13 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶85

Manohar Thakur dated 31.08.2012 to the queries sent to him by the Investigator, Murali Manohar Thakur had categorically admitted that he was riding the motorcycle and that Vatsal Setu was sitting behind him.

¶86

He submitted that this reply email by Murali Manohar Thakur conclusively proved that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion. He also highlighted the fact that since this reply email of Murali Manohar Thakur was accepted and the medical expenses incurred by Murali Manohar Thakur towards injuries were reimbursed by another public sectorInsurer, the Insurer in the present case could not disown that fact. He submitted that when one public sector insurance company had accepted that Murali Manohar Thakur was riding the motorcycle and had reimbursed his medical expenses, it was impermissible for the present insurer to contend the contrary.

¶87

Lastly, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the statements of Pushpak Jindal had also been secured by the investigator and they were part of Ex.P.47,

¶88

14 -

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶90

in which Pushpak Jindal, the owner of the motorcycle had categorically admitted that Murali Manohar Thakur had borrowed his motorcycle on the fateful day and while going back from the office along with Vatsal Setu, the accident had occurred. He submitted that if Murali Manohar Thakur had borrowed the motorcycle, it was obvious that it was Murali Manohar Thakur who was riding the motorcycle.

¶91

Learned counsel also contended that since the evidence on record clearly established that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion, the Insurer would be liable to pay compensation given the fact that the motorcycle was issued with a comprehensive policy and this Court was required to award compensation taking into consideration the monthly income of Vatsal Setu, which was about Rs.26,000/-.

¶92

Learned counsel for the Insurer, per contra ,

¶93

contended that the delay in filing the appeal i.e., 675 days, by itself, created a serious doubt about the accident.

¶94

15 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶96

The further fact that no complaint was lodged before the police immediately after the accident and no autopsy was also conducted immediately after the death of Vatsal Setu would establish that the accident as narrated by the claimants could not be accepted. He submitted that if the accident was not established, as rightly held by the Tribunal, the question of awarding compensation would not arise.

¶97

Learned counsel sought to place reliance on the communication dated 30.08.2012 issued by the BGS Global Hospital–Ex.P6 to contend that the hospital itself had asked for an explanation from the casualty medical officers, duty doctors and the emergency department as to why a MLC was not registered and why an autopsy was not conducted. It was submitted that since it was recorded that the accompanying attendant had stated that the accident was due to a self-fall from the motorcycle, a MLC was not registered and autopsy was also not advised, that by itself would indicate that the accident was essentially a

¶98

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶99

self-fall and was not relatable to the riding of the motorcycle by Murali Manohar Thakur. He also submitted that the fact that no autopsy was conducted and yet, the body was handed over, by itself, proved that no accident occurred and, at any rate, the death was not due to the accident as alleged by the claimants.

¶100

Learned counsel also sought to place reliance on the B-report submitted by the police wherein the police had observed that Vatsal Setu was, in fact, riding the motorcycle. Thus, he submitted that there could be no liability fastened on the Insurer.

¶101

The basic questions that would have to be

¶102

determined in this case are:

¶103

Whether an accident occurred on 17.01.2012; and

¶104

Whether Vatsal Setu was riding the motorcycle or was only a pillion rider when the accident occurred?

¶105

17 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶107

At the very outset, it is to be noticed here that as per the objections filed by the Insurer, the occurrence of the accident was not seriously disputed. The fact that the Insurer contended that, at the time of the accident, it was Vatsal Setu who was riding the motorcycle and not Murali Manohar Thakur, by itself, proves the occurrence of the accident.

¶108

The further fact that both Vatsal Setu and Murali Manohar Thakur were taken to BGS Global hospital immediately after the accident and that both their medical records contained a clear noting that they were brought to the hospital with a history of skid and fall from a motorcycle, would also conclusively prove that a motor vehicle accident did occur out of the use of motorcycle owned by Pushpak Jindal.

¶109

As far as the argument of the Insurer that Vatsal Setu was riding the motorcycle is concerned, the same will have to be rejected.

¶110

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶111

It is to be noticed here that Vatsal Setu was

¶112

admittedly unconscious immediately after the accident and remained in coma till his death on 28.01.2017 and could not obviously give any statement as to who was riding the motorcycle.

¶113

The admission history recorded by BGS Global hospital on 17.01.2012 at about 4.45 p.m. reads as follows:

¶114

“Alleged H/o skid & fall from two wheeler on 17/1/2012 at around 3.30 p.m., near R.V.College, Mysore road, Bangalore as stated by Rider of the two wheeler Mr. Murali Manohar Thakur.

¶115

Patient was pillion rider, when the rider lost control while taking turn & than vehicle had a skid.”

¶116

This noting would leave no room for doubt that Murali Manohar Thakur, who was described as the rider of the motorcycle, had given the statement about the history of skid and fall from the motorcycle and more importantly, he had stated that Vatsal Setu was the pillion rider when he lost control while taking a turn and the vehicle got skid.

¶117

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶118

In the light of this clear recording by the doctors at the time of admission, there can be no room for doubt about Vatsal Setu being the pillion rider.

¶119

The doctor’s noting dated 17.01.2012 also reads as follows:

¶120

“- Alleged h/o self fall, riding pillion on a 2 wheeler, near RV college in Mysore road,

¶121

h/given by friend, driving bike

¶122

bleeding from (L) ear, (R) ear and nose

¶123

fatal injury.”

¶124

Assuming that the note at the time of admission was incorrect, the recording by the resident on 17.01.2012 would also show that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion.

¶125

In order to establish that Murali Manohar Thakur was riding the motorcycle, the medical records of Murali Manohar Thakur, who also suffered injuries and who was also admitted to BGS Global hospital, were secured and marked as exhibits. The noting marked as Ex.P30 made in

¶126

20 -

¶127

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶128

the medical record of Murali Manohar Thakur at the time of admission to the hospital reads as follows:

¶129

“Alleged H/o skid and fall from a two wheeler on 17/01/2012 at around 3.10 p.m. near R.V.College, Mysore road, Bangalore as stated by patient himself.

¶130

Patient was riding a two wheeler tried to take a turn, lost control of the vehicle and fell down due to skid.”

¶131

As could be seen from the above, there is a clear recording of the fact that Murali Manohar Thakur himself stated that he was riding the motorcycle, which he borrowed from his friend Pushpak Jindal and while taking a turn, he lost control of the vehicle and fell from the motorcycle.

¶132

If the medical records of Vatsal Setu and Murali Manohar Thakur are considered together, there can be no room for any doubt that Murali Manohar Thakur had clearly and categorically admitted that he was, in fact, riding the motorcycle.

¶133

21 -

¶134

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶135

The evidence on record also indicates that Murali

¶136

Manohar Thakur did make a claim for reimbursement of his medical expenses with Oriental Insurance Company. The Oriental Insurance Company had initially refused to provide information to the claimant in this regard, which resulted in filing of an appeal by them under the Right to Information Act. In that appeal, the Oriental Insurance Company did furnish the statement given by Murali Manohar Thakur, the owner of the motorcycle–Pushpak Jindal, and one Nishanth Gourav, to its investigator. The reply of Murali Manohar Thakur was by means of an email reply regarding the specific question of the investigator as to the reason of being at the place of the accident and the reason for occurrence of the accident, which reads as follows:

¶137

“2. The reason for being at the place of accident along with Vatsal Setu.

¶138

I and Vatsal work at the same place. On that day we decided to go to my place which is in kenchanhalli to eat at my place. And on my way to

¶139

22 -

¶140

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶141

home on bike this accident happened. I was driving the bike and he was sitting behind me.

¶142

The cause and circumstances of occurrence of the accident.

¶143

I was driving the bike and he was sitting behind me. The speed of bike is around 50-55 KMPH. Since to reach my home I have to take a U turn so around half a KM before the U turn I was thinking to going from last lane of the road to first lane but before that I lost control of the bike and it got off road on the kaccha road I applied the brake but the bike skided and we skided along with the bike afte dat few people gathered around and then I just remember saying to them that please take us to hospital as I was not even able to sit due to pain after that I was in semi conscious state.”

¶144

As could be seen from said reply email of Murali Manohar Thakur, he once again admitted that he was riding the motorcycle and Vatsal Setu was riding pillion. Furthermore, Pushpak Jindal, the owner of the motorcycle had also given a statement, in which he had stated as follows:

¶145

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶146

“I the undersign employee of Mphasis an H.P.Company give my statement that on dated 17^th Jan, 2012 my colleague Murali Thakur had borrowed my motor cycle No:KA01EV8168 (Bajaj Avenger) in the evening hours (3.30 pm) while going back from the office along with Vatsal setu.”

¶147

This would also indicate that it was Murali Manohar Thakur who had borrowed the motorcycle and not Vatsal Setu.

¶148

If in fact Vatsal Setu was riding the motorcycle in all probability Vatsal Setu would have borrowed the motorcycle. The fact that Murali Manohar Thakur had borrowed the motorcycle gives rise to the drawing of an inference that he was riding the motorcycle. It is therefore clear that the evidence on record clearly established that it was Murali Manohar Thakur who was riding the motorcycle.

¶149

As for the reasoning of the Tribunal that no compliant was lodged, no autopsy was conducted and there was discrepancy in the communication of BGS Global

¶150

24 -

¶151

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶152

hospital with reference to non-registering of the MLC case, it is to be noticed here that the hospital records leave no room for doubt that both Vatsal Setu and Murali Manohar Thakur were brought to the hospital with the clear history of having a fall from a motorcycle. In other words, the injuries suffered by them were admittedly informed to the hospital as the result of a motor vehicle accident. It is therefore obvious that it was incumbent upon the hospital to have informed the authorities and if they had not informed the authorities for whatever reason, the claimants cannot be blamed. At any rate, non-registering of a MLC or non-lodging of a complaint would not take away the fact that an accident had occurred due to the use of the motorcycle and there were injuries suffered by the pillion rider which ultimately resulted in his death.

¶153

It may also be borne in mind that Vatsal Setu was in Bengaluru at the time of accident and his parents i.e., the claimants were residents of Jharkhand, and that the occurrence of the accident resulting in their son being in a

¶154

25 -

¶155

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶156

coma would have distressed them immeasurably and his subsequent death would have caused them further trauma. In this state of mind, if they had taken the body for cremation to their native place without lodging a complaint, the same would have to be taken into consideration and the non-lodging of a complaint would have to be ignored as having really being of no consequence for the purposes of deciding a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶157

The argument of the Insurer that the B-report indicated that the motorcycle was driven by Vatsal Setu cannot also be accepted. This is because, a reading of B- report would indicate that the police secured information that Vatsal Setu was riding the motorcycle, but the details of the person who gave them said information is not forthcoming. It is also to be noticed that the investigation commenced only after the complaint was lodged by the claimants on 28.11.2013 and the possibility of them

¶158

26 -

¶159

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶160

securing statements from eye witnesses after such a long passage of time would be remote.

¶161

It may be relevant to state here that the police have not been considered the hospital records during the course of their investigation, though they have noticed that both Vatsal Setu and Murali Manohar Thakur were admitted in the hospital. In fact, they have also stated in the B-report that there were no eye witnesses secured during the course of investigation.

¶162

In my view, in light of the glaring evidence that Murali Manohar Thakur was riding the motorcycle and Vatsal Setu was the pillion rider, coupled with the further

¶163

statement given by Murali Manohar Thakur to the investigator of another public sector insurance company, it will have to be held that Murali Manohar Thakur was the

¶164

rider and that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion. As a consequence, since the vehicle in question was covered with a comprehensive policy, the liability of the Insurer to

¶165

27 -

¶166

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶167

pay compensation in respect of death of a pillion rider– Vatsal Setu cannot be denied.

¶168

As far as compensation is concerned, the evidence on record indicates that the claimant was aged 23 years and was drawing a salary of Rs.26,000/- per month as a trainee software engineer in a company, as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the multiplier of ‘18’ has to be adopted and future prospect of 40% has also to be added to the income of the deceased. Since he was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.39,31,200/- (Rs.26,000/- X 12 + 40% - 50% X 18) towards loss of dependency.

¶169

The claimants, being his parents and siblings, would each be entitled to Rs.48,400/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’, i.e., in all, Rs.1,93,600/- .

¶170

The claimants claim that they have incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards charges for airlifting the body,

¶171

28 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶172

Rs.35,000/- for preserving the body in a coffin and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Apex

¶173

Court in Pranay Sethi’s has held that a sum of Rs.30,000/- would have to be paid under conventional heads (to be increased by 10% every 3 years).

¶174

However, the evidence on record indicates that the body of Vatsal Setu embalmed and was transported from Bengaluru to his native place i.e., Jharkhand by flight. Thus, as against the normal sum of Rs.36,300/-, in my view the claimants would be entitled to Rs.75,000/- in the matter of transportation of the body and funeral expenses (i.e., under the conventional heads).

¶175

The evidence on record indicates that claimants have

¶176

incurred Rs.2,30,000/- towards ‘medical expenses’ of Vatsal Setu. The claimants would thus be entitled to Rs.2,30,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶177

The claimants also had to come over to Bengaluru

¶178

and stay in Bengaluru during the course of Vatsal Sethu’s

¶179

29 - NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶180

hospitalisation and it would therefore be proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of conveyance and attendant charges.

¶181

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to

¶182

Rs.44,79,800/- as compensation along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶183

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation before this Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶184

On the deposit being made by the Insurance Company, claimants 1 and 2 (being his parents) would be entitled to the entire amount of compensation (excluding the portion of Rs.96,800/- which the claimants 3 and 4 i.e., the siblings of Vatsal Sethu would be entitled) and out of this sum, 75% of the amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank with permission to claimants 1 and 2 to withdraw monthly/quarterly interest

¶185

NC: 2024:KHC:42708 MFA No. 1923 of 2020

¶186

30 -

¶187

accrued and remaining 25% shall be permitted to be withdrawn by them.

¶188

58. The claimants 3 and 4 would each be entitled only to

¶189

the sum of Rs.48,400/- and they are permitted to withdraw the same.

¶190

This appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶191

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶192

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Bikash Prasad @ Vikas Prasad v. Mr Pushpak Jindal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikash Prasad @ Vikas Prasad v. Mr Pushpak Jindal

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

Sri Mudlagiriyappa @ Mudalappa Vs Sri Kumaraswamy

Sri Govindaraju Vs Mr Shivaramegowda

Priyanka Vs Deepak

B Durugappa Vs U Anjanamurthy

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs Sri Sudarshan

Miss Varunya Vs the Manager