Sri. Kishore Kumar Vs Royal Sundaram General

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MANGALA PUNARBHAVA NEXT TO BRIGADE TOWERS, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 003, REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

VOLER CAR PVT. LTD., NO. 3730/A-2, 1ST FLOOR, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, SUBRAMANYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6869/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in judgment and awarded dated 05.02.2019 MVC.No.6867/2017 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, SCCH-4 (for short 'Tribunal').

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

The date of accident, involvement of vehicle,

¶28

death of late.Sajan Kumar and liability fastened on the insurance company is not disputed; the only challenge is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶29

Heard Miss.Nitya V., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Prakash M.H., learned counsel appearing for appellants and Sri.Ravi Samprathi learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Insurance Company.

¶30

Learned counsel Mrs.V.Nitya vehemently submitted that the deceased was II semester Electrical Engineering student, lost his life in the road traffic accident and was the only son to the appellants. The Tribunal has erred in considering the future prospects of the engineering student and equated the income of the engineering student with an unskilled labourer by taking a

¶31

sum of Rs.12,000/- per month and awarded meager compensation. Even under the head of filial consortium, no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. In

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

view of the law laid down of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶35

case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI¹ , and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS² , considering the case, the Tribunal ought to have taken income the deceased who would have got an easy good job not less than 20,000 US Dollar per annum and sought to allow the appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel Miss.Nitya to buttress her contention, relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.104894/2019 (MV) connected with MFA No.103864/2018 (MV) and contends that for the death of an 3^rd year B.E. student which occurred in the year 2016, this court has taken income at Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶37

Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel Sri.R.Samprathi, submitted

¶38

1 2017 (16) SCC 680

¶39

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

that fluctuations and presumptions cannot be considered.

¶43

The Tribunal has taken income at the rate of Rs.12,000/per month, as per the chart of Karnataka State Legal Service Authority (for short 'KSLSA') for unskilled labourer is Rs.11,000/- for the year 2017. The Tribunal having considered the fact that deceased was II^nd semester Electrical Engineering student but taking the income as contended by learned counsel for the appellants are all guess work and presumptions. Without there being any foundation of law, it cannot be considered. As the Tribunal has properly considered the case and awarded the compensation, the same does not call for any interference and sought for dismissing the appeal.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers along with Trial Court records and on perusal of the documentary proof submitted on behalf of appellants in MVC No.6869/2017 particularly at Ex.P.10 which is a notarized copy of college receipt, for which the appellants were paying sum of

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Rs.70,000/- towards the college fee. Taking into consideration the cost of education, though this Court is not inclined to consider the income as contended, either by the appellant to an extent of 20,000 US Dollars annually and Rs.12,000/- per month as contended by respondent - Insurance Company. However, taking into consideration the fact that he was an electrical engineering student, he had the prospects of job opportunity and had he completed the course and initial income may not be below Rs.32,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. However, on a mere guess work, a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month is taken towards income per month, keeping in mind the fact that the deceased was the only son to the appellants and he was a student. My view is strengthened by the judgment of this court in MFA No. 104894/2019 Supra In view of the same, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble

¶48

Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI³ , 40% to be added towards the future prospects.

¶52

To buttress his argument the learned counsel

¶53

places reliance on the judgment in the case of SRI.MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS VS. SRI.UMESH.M

¶54

AND ANOTHER, the Division Bench of this Court has taken Rs.25,000/- per month in respect of Engineering student, wherein the incident happened in the year 2016. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 has clearly discussed the reason for taking Rs.25,000/as income per month, which reads as follows:

¶55

"9. The learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the various rulings particularly a decision of this Court in M.F.A.No.294/2006 (MV) between Shri Rajendra S/o Ganapatrao Joshi and another Vs. Shri K.Ananthakrishna Bhat and another) dated 09.02.2010, wherein this Court referring to an Engineering Student has taken income at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for the accident taken place in the year 2002. The learned counsel also relied upon Ex.P.13, a copy of

¶56

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

the same is produced, which is the Government Order bearing No.FD 7 SRP 2012 dated 21.04.2012 where the salary of an Engineer in the Government Job is fixed at Rs.22,000/- as on 2012. He has also relied upon another ruling of the Apex Court reported in (2015) 2 SCC 180 between Ashwinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramachandra Sharma and another wherein, the Apex Court has taken an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the deceased who died, while studying MBBS. The accident was pertaining to the year 2002 precisely on 12.07.2002. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court reported in 2017 ACJ 1036 between S.Saraswathy and another Vs. A.Elumalai and another, wherein the Court has taken into consideration the income per month of a person, who was studying Engineering at the rate of Rs.20,000/- for the accident happened on 05.08.2011.

¶60

10. Taking into consideration, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts cited supra, the accidents took place much earlier to 2011. Therefore, the amount taken at the rate of Rs.20,000/during that period might have been adequate as per the Courts. Even considering in the year 2012, according to the Government, the amount of Rs.22,000/was paid as salary to the said persons. Therefore, the incident happened so far as this case is concerned is in the year 2016. Considering the hike of the income every year, we are of the opinion that if an

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

amount of Rs.25,000/is taken into consideration it would meet the ends of justice. "

¶64

Considering the facts of the present case, the

¶65

income is taken as Rs.25,000/- per month and in terms of the judgment of the PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA) the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires redetermination. On re-determination, the ‘LOSS OF

¶66

DEPENDENCY’ works out as follows:

¶67

= (25,000 + 40%) – 50% x 12 x 18= 37,80,000/-

¶68

As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma (supra) the appellants / claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each. Accordingly, there are two dependants and they are entitled for a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2) is awarded under the said head. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RASMITA BISWAL & OTHERS vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶69

COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER⁴ , there shall be an

¶70

4 (2022) 2 SC 767

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

enhancement of 10% on the conventional heads for every three years. The accident occurred during the year 2017, there shall be 20% escalation which works out to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.80,000 + 20%) towards ‘Loss Of Consortium / Filial Consortium’ .

¶74

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY AND FUNERAL EXPENSES' and ‘LOSS OF ESTATE’ at Rs.30,000/- , which is just and proper and does not require any interference. However, 10% + 10% escalation is awarded. Therefore, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.30,000 + 10%

¶75

+ 10%) is awarded under the said head.

¶76

In summary, the total compensation redetermined by this Court under various heads is as follows:

¶77

1.	Loss of dependency	: Rs.	37,80,000/-
2.	Filial consortium	: Rs.	96,000/-
3.	Funeral Expenses and Transportation Expenses	: Rs.	36,000/-

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶79

11 -

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

and lost of Estate

¶82

TOTAL : Rs. 39,12,000/-

¶83

The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.39,12,000/- as against Rs.13,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellants - claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.25,86,000/(Rs.39,12,000 - 13,26,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date petition till realization.

¶84

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶87

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6869/2017 is hereby modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.25,86,000/- as against Rs.13,26,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:28324 MFA No. 2980 of 2020

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

iii. Respondent No.1-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation amount of Rs.25,86,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, before the concerned Tribunal, within Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the compensation already been paid/deposited.

¶92

iv. Apportionment and disbursement is as per the order of the tribunal.

¶93

v. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to cost.

¶94

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶95

AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. Kishore Kumar v. Royal Sundaram General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kishore Kumar v. Royal Sundaram General

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

Mr. Venkatesha. D. K. Vs Mr. Fayaz Pasha

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Manjula

The Regional Manager Vs Basavaraju

Syed Nawaz Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police

Sri C Manjunatha Vs Sri E Rangesh

Mr. Prakasha K P Vs Mr. Girish G