Claimants, parents of a pillion rider who died after a road accident, sought enhancement of the Tribunal's award of Rs.12,64,570/-. The court revised notional income to Rs.13,300/- per month with 40% addition, awarded loss of consortium under Pranay Sethi and Magma precedents, and enhanced compensation to Rs.15,69,770/- with 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 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021
WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.11.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.5710/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 03.06.2019 passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH11) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC.No.5710/2017. This appeal is premised on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate and meager. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.
One Ramesha was traveling towards Kunigal as a pillion rider in bike bearing reg. No.KA-06-ET-8787 along with rider Venkatesha on 10.12.2016. When they reached in front of the KEB Office, Hebbur Village, T.M.Road, rider of the vehicle rode the bike in rash and negligent manner and lost control due to which they fell down and the pillion rider Ramesha sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and he was shifted to the District Hospital at Tumkur and after securing first aid, the injured Ramesha was shifted to Nimhans Hospital at Bangalore and he was inpatient and underwent surgery for head injury. Later, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Bangalore where he succumbed to the injuries on 02.03.2017.
and financially. Hence, they filed a claim petition seeking compensation.
4.2. Respondents appeared and filed statement of objections denying the claim made by the claimants and denied the income, avocation and age of the deceased and the compensation sought for is exorbitant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.3. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.
4.4. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish
the case, claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to 13. Whereas respondent No.2 examined itself as RW.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to 4 and examined one eyewitness as RW.2.
4.5. On the basis of material evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,64,570/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimants and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 30 days.
NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021
4.6. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.
Company contends that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. As no proof of income is produced, notional income is taken for assessment and on other heads. He also contends that there is no requirement of interference at the hands of this Court and on these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021
(a) The point for interference in this appeal would be assessment of the income, as the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes Rs.9500/- per month and the same is taken as against Rs.8,000/- awarded by the
NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021
Tribunal. Hence, the income shall be taken as Rs.13,300/- per month (Rs.9,500/- + 40%). Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs. 13,56,600/- (Rs.6650 x 12 x 17) as against Rs.11,42,400/- awarded by the tribunal.
(b) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, which does not call for interference. However, 10% escalation for one block period requires to be awarded, which would be Rs.3,000/-, in all Rs. 33,000 /-.
(c) Towards consortium no amount is awarded by the Tribunal. As there are two dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, which has been subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, Rs.40,000/- per head with an escalation of 10% is awarded under this head which would be Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2 x 10). Medical
expenses of Rs.92,170/- which is awarded by the Tribunal is not interfered.
Rs.12,64,570/- as mentioned in the table below:
| Heads | Amount in Rs. |
|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | 13,56,600-00 |
| Loss of consortium | 88,000-00 |
| Loss of Estate and Transportation of | 33,000-00 |
| dead body funeral expenses |
|
| charges and miscellaneous |
|
| expenses | |
| Medical expenses | 92,170-00 |
| TOTAL | 15,69,770-00 |
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021
Sd/JUDGE
RKA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of a pillion rider was inadequate and required enhancement?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and othersFollowed
(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680
Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and othersFollowed
(2018) 18 SCC 130 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Hanumamma
Sri. Shankarappa
Sri. Venkatesha
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
