Narasimhamurthy. B. K. Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Narasimhamurthy. B. K. Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal Allowed-In-Part; judgment and award dated 15.06.2018 in MVC No.573/2017 modified; appellants-claimants entitled to additional compensation of Rs.5,39,200/- (Rs.10,39,200 minus Rs.5,00,000) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization; respondent-Corporation directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; disbursement and apportionment as per the Tribunal's impugned order; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befits the concept of just compensation (i.e., whether enhancement of the Tribunal's award is warranted).

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's award of a global compensation of Rs.5 lakh does not adequately conform to the concept of just compensation; the Court answered the framed point partly in the affirmative, warranting enhancement/modification of the award.

Key takeaways

Since the deceased was a 16-year-old adolescent, the only daughter of the claimants and with nothing on record showing she was an earning member, it is just and proper — following the Division Bench decision in Chetana — to fix her notional monthly income at Rs.6,000/- rather than the KSLSA-chart figure of Rs.11,000/-.ratio¶57
As the deceased was aged 16 years on the date of the accident, the applicable multiplier is '18'.ratio¶55
40% of the notional income is to be added towards loss of future prospects because the deceased was an adolescent, and 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Enhancement appeal under Section 173(1) MV Act by the parents of Kum.Meghana (aged 16, an adolescent student who died in a road traffic accident on 17.05.2017) against the Tribunal's global award of Rs.5 lakh with 7.5% interest in MVC No.573/2017 (VI Additional District & Sessions Judge and Member, AMACT, Tumakuru). Held, the global award fell short of 'just compensation'. Following the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Chetana, the Court fixed the notional monthly income of the non-earning adolescent only-daughter at Rs.6,000/- (instead of the KSLSA-chart Rs.11,000/-), added 40% towards loss of future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, and applied multiplier 18, computing loss of dependency at Rs.9,07,200/-. Relying on Magma General Insurance, Pranay Sethi and Rasmita Biswal, conventional heads were awarded with 10% escalation for every three years: loss of consortium (including loss of love and affection) Rs.96,000/- and loss of estate/funeral & transportation Rs.36,000/-. Total redetermined at Rs.10,39,200/-; enhancement of Rs.5,39,200/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing till realization, payable within six weeks; disbursement per the Tribunal's order; no costs.

NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2791 OF 2019 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

NARASIMHAMURTHY B.K. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O KALAIAH,

GANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BENACHIGERE, HODALURU POST, GUBBI TALUK,

NOW R/AT BUGUDANAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI,

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

(BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANTS

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C. SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.573/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, AMACT, TUMAKURU, 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 T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is posted for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

This appeal is by the appellants – claimants against the judgment and award dated 15.06.2018, in MVC No.573/2017, passed by the VI Additional District And Sessions Judge and Member, AMACT at Tumakuru, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

The parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial court for easy reference.

The appellants / claimants filed a petition under Section – 166 of the MV Act seeking total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum, for

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

the death of Kum.Meghana aged 16 years, who died in a

road traffic accident which occurred on 17.05.2017.

The date of accident, involvement of the

vehicle, death of Kum.Meghana, an adolescent girl aged 16 years in the accident and the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation is not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

Heard Sri. Mushtaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.L.Sanjeev learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation and perused the records.

Sri. Ahmed submitted that the deceased was

aged 16 years as on the date of the accident i.e., 17.05.2017 and she was a student who passed SSLC and was about to join PUC. She was the only daughter to the parents and the claimants have lost their daughter’s love and affection and are suffering from mental agony. He further submitted that the Tribunal without noticing the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

fact that the deceased was aged 16 years and an adolescent proceeded to award a global compensation only Rs.5 lakh, along with interest at 7.5% per annum, which is against the principle of just compensation. The deceased was an adolescent and not a child. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (for short ‘KSLSA’) fixed the notional income at Rs.11,000/- p.m., for the year 2017. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER¹ ,

while determining the multiplier in accidental claims, has taken into consideration persons from the age group of 15 years and onwards. He has further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA AND OTHERS VS.BABUJI AND OTHERS² has taken the notional income as fixed by KSLSA, though the deceased was 17 years old at the time of death. He also stated that

the Tribunal has not considered the case of the claimants

1 2009 ACJ 1298

2 M.F.A.NO.102268 OF 2019 (MV)

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

for awarding the compensation under the conventional heads, and just awarded a Global Compensation of Rs.5 lakh for the death of an adolescent of 16 years which is against the principles of just compensation and seeks to modify the award by awarding suitable enhancement.

Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel

for the appellant, Sri.Sanjeev supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the claimants and awarded just and proper compensation and the same does not call for interference or modification at the hands of this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record the only question that arises for consideration of this Court is:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit in the concept of just compensation?

My answer to the point is partly in affirmative. Admittedly, the accident had occurred in the year 2017 as

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

per chart prepared by KSLSA the notional income fixed is Rs.11,000/- for the year 2017. The deceased was aged 16 years and an adolescent girl as on the date of the accident and the multiplier applicable is ‘18’. As per the judgment of this Court in the case of CHETANA AND OTHERS,

supra the age of the deceased was 17 years and was a student and doing milk vending business and earning member of the family. In the present case on hand, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was an earning member. However, it cannot be lost site of the fact that the deceased was not a child but an adolescent. Considering the fact that the deceased being the only daughter to the claimants and in view of the judgment of

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA AND OTHERS supra , it is just and proper to take the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/p.m. Having taken the income at Rs.6,000/-, 40% of the same is to be added towards ‘loss of future prospects’ since the deceased was an adolescent, 50% is required to

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

be deducted towards personal expenses. On

redetermination, the compensation works out as follows:

(Rs.6,000 + 40%) - 50% x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,07,200/-

The Tribunal has committed error in not awarding compensation under the conventional heads. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of

MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU

RAM & OTHERS³ and in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI⁴ , the claimants i.e., the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘ Loss Of Consortium’. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RASMITA BISWAL & OTHERS VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER⁵ , there shall be an enhancement of 10% on the conventional heads for every

3 2018 ACJ 2782

4 (2017) 16 SCC 680

5 (2022) 2 SC 767

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

three years. Taking into consideration the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of consortium’, being Rs.80,000/-, the escalation at 10%+10% works out to Rs.16,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants / claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.96,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2 + 20%) towards ‘Loss Of Consortium’ including Loss Of Love And Affection’.

Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘Loss Of Estate’ And ‘Funeral And Transportation’ respectively, along with 10% + 10% escalation. Therefore, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 x 10% + 10%) towards ‘Loss Of Estate’ And ‘Funeral And Transportation’.

Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are entitled

for enhanced compensation as follows:

Loss Dependency	: Rs.	9,07,200/-
Loss of Consortium	: Rs.	96,000/-
Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses	: Rs.	36,000/-
TOTAL	: Rs.	10,39,200/-

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.10,39,200/as against Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,39,200/- (Rs.10,39,200 – Rs.5,00,000) along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent – Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within Six Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is Allowed-In-Part ;

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in award dated 15.06.2018, in MVC No.573/2017, passed by the VI Additional

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14605 MFA No. 2791 of 2019

District And Sessions Judge and Member, AMACT at Tumakuru is modified;

iii) The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,39,200/(Rs.10,39,200 – Rs.5,00,000) along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization;

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent – Corporation, within Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

v) Disbursement as well as apportionment of the compensation amount shall be as per the impugned order of the Tribunal.

v) No order as to cost.

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

JJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11