The High Court allowed the insurers' appeal to reduce compensation amounts and interest rates in motor accident death claims, modifying the Tribunal's award while upholding the 50% shared negligence finding.
Compensation amounts reduced; interest rate reduced to 6% p.a.; insurers directed to deposit 50% of the modified amounts.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:33144 MFA No. 635 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1558 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2021 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2019(MV)
IN MFA 635/2021 BETWEEN:
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN NEXT FRIEND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT SMT CHANDANA
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE RESIDING KODIHALLI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT
PRESENTLY R/AT PADUVANAHALLI VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:33144 MFA No. 635 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1558 of 2019
BELLUR HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MYSORE ROAD, BESIDE NAGESH HOSPITAL CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN.
R/AT NO.KODIHALLI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR R2: SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4: NOTICE TO R1, R5 & R6 ARE
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 04.07.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.365/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA 1558/2019 BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, S.M. TOWERS 11TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011.
ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO. 28 CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-5600001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:33144 MFA No. 635 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1558 of 2019
R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT KURUVANKA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MYSORE ROAD, BESIDE NAGESH HOSPITAL CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN.
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: SRI. ANOOP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B C SEETHA RAMARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R5: NOTICE TO R3, R4 & R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.402/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,27,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
MFA No.635/2021 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.365/2017, whereas MFA No.1558/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company in MVC No.402/2017 under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.11.2018 passed by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (sit at Channarayapatna) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in the respective MVC numbers. Since the challenge is to the same judgment, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being passed.
respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear
before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the maxi cab in which the deceased persons were traveling and also the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle at 50% each, 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.20,32,800/- in MVC No.365/2017 and Rs.19,27,800/- in MVC No.402/2017
along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed both the insurers to deposit 50% of the compensation amount each, along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.
Re.Negligence:
i) Firstly, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the canter lorry, which is parked in the middle of the road, without any indication, at about 8.30 in the night. The driver of the maxi-cab was unable to see the parked lorry. Inspite of his best efforts, he could not control the maxi-cab and dashed against the parked lorry.
ii) Secondly, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry alone, but the Tribunal has erred in holding that both the driver of the lorry as well as the driver of the maxi-cab were negligent at 50% each in causing the accident.
iii) Thirdly, it is not in dispute that the driver of the lorry parked the lorry in the middle of the road and it is also not in dispute that there is no parking light and it is also admitted fact that the accident occurred at 8.30 in the night. If the vehicle is parked at the side of the road, the accident would not have occurred and the claimants would
not have suffered any injuries. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the lorry alone is negligent in causing the accident. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of KUMARI JYOTHI AND
OTHERS vs. MOHD. USMAN ALI AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2002 Kar.893 and MFA No.102501/2015 and connected matters, disposed of on 28.06.2019, wherein, in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court has held that driver of the parked lorry is 100% negligent in causing the accident. To that extent, she sought for modification of the order of the Tribunal in respect of negligence.
Re.Quantum in MVC No.402/2017:
i) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, they failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. Consequently, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- is on the higher side.
ii) Secondly, since the claimants have failed to establish the income of the deceased the Tribunal erred in considering addition of future prospects.
iii) Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the higher side, contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU
RAM [2018 ACJ 2782].
iv) 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.
Re.Quantum in MVC No.365/2017:
i) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, they failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. Consequently, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- is on the higher side.
ii) Secondly, since the claimants have failed to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in considering addition of future prospects.
iii) Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional is on the higher side, contrary to
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAGMA
GENERAL INSURANCE (supra).
iv) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE (supra), the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimants.
Re.Negligence:
i) Firstly, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the maxicab as well as the driver of the lorry and the police have filed charge sheet against both the drivers. It is very clear from the complaint and the evidence of the parties that the driver of the maxi-cab was proceeding at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and he has not made any efforts to control the vehicle. Therefore, due to the negligence of the driver of the maxi-cab the accident occurred.
ii) Secondly, the driver of the maxi-cab has not been examined and no documents have been produced to show that it was dark at 8.30 p.m. and the judgment produced by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the maxi-cab is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, he contended that the Tribunal has rightly held that both the driver of the maxi-cab as well as the lorry are negligent in causing the accident.
Re.Quantum:
i) Firstly, considering the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
ii) Secondly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE (supra), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of both the appeals.
MVC No.402/2017 has raised the following contentions:
i) Firstly, the claimants assert that at the time of the accident the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. However, the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
ii) Secondly, considering the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
i) Firstly, the claimants assert that at the time of the accident the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. However, the assessment of income of the
deceased at Rs.8,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
ii) Secondly, considering the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and allowing the appeal filed by the claimants.
aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
accident in question occurred at 8.30 p.m. on a national highway. As per the sketch produced as Ex.P18 and mahazar – Ex,.P17, the lorry was parked on the edge of the main road. As per the sketch, the width of the road is 24 ft., the maxi-cab was going from Bengaluru to Yediyuru. It was moving at the left side of the road. The canter lorry was parked at the left side of the road. It was not the case of either of the parties that there was any other vehicle moving in front of either side of the maxicab. As per the evidence of PW1 the maxi-cab was moving at a high speed and it is nobody’s case that in the place of the accident there was no light. There is sufficient space for the driver of the maxi-cab to avoid the accident. Even the driver of the maxi-cab has not been examined to prove that he has taken a precaution to avoid the accident and there was no light or that the canter lorry was parked without any light. Therefore, there is also negligence on the part of the driver of the canter lorry. It is also an admitted fact that the canter lorry was parked on the road without any indicator or signal for the parking. Therefore,
the police have filed charge sheet against drivers of both the vehicles. Considering the evidence available on record and considering the complaint and mahazar it is very clear that both the drivers of the maxi-cab and the canter lorry were negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal rightly held that both are liable at 50% each. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurer of the maxi-cab is not applicable to the present case. In that case, it was proved that the lorry was parked in the middle of the road and it was visible. In this case, the driver of the maxi-cab has not been examined and it is not the case that the parked lorry was not visible because it is a straight road. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative.
Re.Quantum in MVC No.402/2017:
According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2016, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.9,500/- 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 INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.13,300/-. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.8,867/- has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.17,02,464/(Rs.8,8671216) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.
expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of
spousal consortium'.
Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE (supra), claimant No.2, daughter of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant No.3, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.
| Compensation under different Heads |
Amount in (Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | 17,02,464 |
| Funeral expenses | 15,000 |
| Loss of estate | 15,000 |
| Loss of spousal consortium | 40,000 |
| Loss of Parental consortium | 40,000 |
| Loss of Filial consortium | 40,000 |
NC: 2024:KHC:33144 MFA No. 635 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1558 of 2019
Total 18,52,464
Re.Quantum in MVC No.365/2017:
multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,15,200/(Rs.9,9751216) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.
NC: 2024:KHC:33144 MFA No. 635 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1558 of 2019
| Compensation under different Heads |
Amount in (Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | 19,15,200 |
| Funeral expenses | 15,000 |
| Loss of estate | 15,000 |
| Loss of spousal consortium | 40,000 |
| Loss of Parental consortium | 40,000 |
| Loss of Filial consortium | 80,000 |
| Total | 21,05,200 |
ORDER
(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
(iii) The claimants in MVC No.402/2017 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,52,464/- as against Rs.19,27,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) The claimants in MVC No.365/2017 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,05,200/- as against Rs.20,32,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is scalled down to 6% p.a.
(v) Both the insurance companies are directed to deposit the compensation amount at 50% each along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(vi) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.
(vii) In view of the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 407
days in filing the appeal.
Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding both the maxi-cab and lorry drivers 50% negligent despite a parked vehicle accident.
Whether the quantum of compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal was correct and reasonable.
Whether the compensation amount and interest rates should be modified based on the Supreme Court judgment in Magma General Insurance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
KUMARI JYOTHI AND OTHERS vs. MOHD. USMAN ALI AND OTHERSDistinguished¶70
KUMARI JYOTHI AND OTHERS vs. MOHD. USMAN ALI AND OTHERS, ILR 2002 Kar.893 · Who else cites this
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAMExplained¶77
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782]
MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERSExplained¶79
MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018)
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERSApplied¶123
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157] · Who else cites this
MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERSExplained¶89
MS.JOYEETA BOSE (supra)
CHANDANA P.S.
KUM K M HASINI
SYED ALEEM
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
CHANNAKESHAVAMURTHY M T
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
