Nagaraja Srinivasa Rao Vs Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.11.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.3657/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION BARRED BY TIME.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,

¶26

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶32

The appellants are the parents of the deceased, Mr. Sanath Rao, who has died in a road accident on 27.06.2018 when he was on his motorcycle. The accident involves a lorry bearing No.KA-05-AC-6218. The appellants have filed their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1 Crore in M.V.C. No.3657/2019 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal' ].

¶33

The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.17,50,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum apportioning this between the appellants

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

in the ratio of 40:60. The Tribunal has awarded the

¶38

aforesaid amount under the following heads:

¶39

*Compensation* *Heads*	*Compensation* *Amount*
Towards loss of dependency	Rs.16,63,200-00
Towards loss of consortium	Rs.44,000-00
Towards loss of estate	Rs.16,500-00
Towards funeral & obsequies ceremony	Rs.16,500-00
expenses
Towards transportation of dead body	Rs.10,000-00
*Total*	*Rs.17,50,200-00*

¶40

Mr. K. Shantharaj, the learned counsel for

¶41

the appellants, and Mr. Ashok N. Patil, the learned counsel who is on record for the first respondent [ the Insurer of the lorry in question ], are categorical that there is no dispute [a] that the lorry driver was negligent and responsible for the accident, [b] that the first respondent is liable to pay just and reasonable compensation to the appellants, and [c] that the deceased, who was aged 21 years as of the date of the accident, was studying for Engineering Graduation in

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Electronics and Communication with M/s. National Institute of Engineering, Mysuru.

¶45

Mr. K. Shantharaj submits that this Court must enhance compensation towards loss of

¶46

dependency and towards loss of consortium, and in this regard, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has computed the loss of dependency taking the deceased’s income at Rs.11,000/- per month with addition of 40% towards future prospects and deduction of 50% towards personal expenditure. The learned counsel emphasises that the deceased had completed three semesters in distinction and was pursuing the fourth semester and that he had a bright future. On the compensation towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has only awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- when it is undisputed that each of the appellants would be entitled for such amount with an addition of 10% for every three years.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Mr. Ashok N. Patil submits that he will not

¶50

contest that both the appellants are entitled for the loss of consortium in a sum of Rs.40,000/- and that there must be an enhancement in the loss of dependency taking a higher notional income of the deceased. However, the learned counsel submits that the notional income cannot be taken at more than Rs.20,000/- per month; and in this regard, the learned counsel relies upon a recent decision of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).28062-63/2023 underscoring that the Apex Court has taken the income of a deceased Engineering student at Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶51

In the light of the rival submissions, the only question for consideration is:

¶52

Should the Tribunal's judgment and award be modified granting higher compensation to the appellants towards loss of dependency and the loss of consortium ?

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The crucial evidence that remains

¶56

undisputed is that the deceased, Mr. Sanath Rao, was pursuing Engineering with M/s. National Institute of Engineering, Mysuru [ a prestigious Engineering Institution in the State of Karnataka ], which lends for a just inference on the deceased being a meritorious student. This gains further significance in the light of the undisputed fact that the deceased had passed the first three semesters in distinction. Definitely, the Tribunal could not have taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month. In the case of unskilled labour, for computation of loss of dependency when the claim petitions arise out of the accidents in the year 2018, income is taken at Rs.12,500/- per month.

¶57

If the decision of the Apex Court is

¶58

applied, the income of the deceased, Mr. Sanath Rao,

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

must be taken at Rs.20,000/- with a just escalation of 10% because the accident in the present case is in the year 2018. However, the distinguishing features are that the deceased was pursuing Engineering in Electronics and Communication as a meritorious student in a prestigious Institution in the State. In the case on hand with the Apex Court, the deceased was pursuing a degree in Food Technology, and there is no reference to circumstances that would bear resemblance to the afore. If the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.25,000/- per month, there would be just compensation, and this will not cause any bonanza, which is frowned upon by the Courts.

¶62

As such, the loss of dependency is computed taking the notional income of the deceased, Sri Sanath Rao at Rs.25,000/- retaining all other parameters. The loss of dependency will be in a sum

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

of Rs.37,80,000/- determined in the following

¶66

manner.

¶67

Details for Computation of Loss of Dependency		Amount [in Rs.]
MonthlyIncome		25,000
Addition towards Future Prospects	40%	10,000
Monthly Income + Future Prospects		35,000
Annual Income	12	4,20,000
Deduction towards personal expenses	50%	2,10,000
Multiplicand [after deduction towards personal Expenses]		2,10,000
Multiplier	18
Loss of Dependency		37,80,000/-

¶68

It is undisputed that the appellants are

¶69

entitled for a higher compensation towards loss of consortium, and that is because each of them would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The accident is in the year 2018 and therefore, there need not be any enhancement in this amount at the rate of 10%. This addition must be after the lapse of three years from the date of judgment of the Apex Court in National

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

¶74

Others¹ which contemplates escalation. In the light

¶75

of the afore, the appellants will be entitled for enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.21,36,300/- which is brought out by the following comparative table.

¶76

*Compensation* *Heads*	*By the Tribunal* *[in Rs.]*	*By this Court* *[in Rs.]*
Towards loss of dependency	16,63,200	*37,80,000*
Towards loss of	44,000
consortium		*80,000* *[40,000 +*
Towards loss of estate	16,500	*40,000]*
Towards funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses	16,500	16,500
Towards transportation of dead body	10,000	10,000
*Total*	*17,50,200*	*38,86,500*
*Enhanced Com*	*pensation*	*21,36,300*

¶77

ORDER

¶78

The appeal is allowed granting to the

¶79

claimants a total compensation of

¶80

1 2017 16 SCC 680

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:39641-DB MFA No. 2741 of 2023

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

Rs.38,86,500/- with an enhancement in a

¶85

sum of Rs.21,36,300/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

¶86

[b] The respondent - Insurer is called upon to deposit Rs.21,36,300/- with interest as aforesaid within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

¶87

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶88

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶89

RB

Nagaraja Srinivasa Rao v. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraja Srinivasa Rao v. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Honble Upa Lokayukta Vs Sri K G Manjunath

Kum. Saroja G.T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka