Mr Narayana Shetty Vs Mrs Nayana Holla

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, EMJAYS BUILDING, BALMATTA, MANGALURU, D.K. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER PIN-575 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. T. SANDESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1278/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI, MANGALURU, D.K, AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 107/2016:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT 1^ST FLOOR, EMJAYS BUILDING, OPP. NETHRAVATHI BUILDING, BALIMATTA, MANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AT REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, MG.ROAD, BANGALORE-560025.

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. S. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

MR NARAYANA SHETTY, S/O DASANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.4-251 KANCHARAGADDE HOUSE,

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46156 MFA No. 61 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 107 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

SVS COLLEGE ROAD, BANTWAL KASABA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK.

¶36

MRS.RAJESHWARI SHETTY, W/O NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.4-251, KANCHARAGADDE HOUSE, SVS COLLEGE ROAD, BANTWAL KASABA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK-574 211.

¶37

MRS. NAYANA HOLLA, ADULT, W/O N.NARASIMHARAJ, R/OF SNEHA NILAYA, H.NO.12-477, MANDEKOPPA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.-574 211.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;

¶40

SRI. PRASHANTH D. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDESH SHETTY .T ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶41

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1278/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI, MANGALURU, D.K, AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶42

THESE APPEALS ARE, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46156 MFA No. 61 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 107 of 2016

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶46

sORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

These two appeals are filed by the claimants as well as the Insurer calling in question the judgment and award dated 01.09.2015 in MVC No.1278/2013 passed by the MACT and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

¶48

The date of accident, the involvement of the vehicle, the death of the deceased Amarnath Shetty S/o Narayana Shetty, and the liability to pay compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute raised by the claimants is regarding inadequate compensation, whereas the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenges the award as exorbitant.

¶49

Heard Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Prashanth D., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Srishaila, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in M.F.A No.61/2016, and Sri S. Srishaila, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 & 2 Sri. Prashanth D., on behalf of Sri. Sandesh Shetty T., learned

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46156 MFA No. 61 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 107 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

counsel for respondent No.3 in MFA Sri. T. Sandesh Shetty, learned counsel heard for the owner of the offending vehicle in both the cases.

¶53

Sri Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has not considered the case of the appellant for adding future prospectus, considering that the age of the deceased as on the date of death. He also submits that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there must be 10% escalation for every completed three years on the compensation awarded under the Conventional heads. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards the ‘Loss of Estate’ and the amount awarded towards ‘Filial Consortium’ is meagre. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, each claimant is entitled for Rs.40,000/-. He further submits that the multiplier must have been applied with reference to the age of the deceased and not with the age of the younger parents as taken by the Tribunal. With these submissions, learned counsel sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶54

Refuting the submissions of Sri S. Srishaila, learned

¶55

counsel for the insurer submits that in the absence of any

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46156 MFA No. 61 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 107 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

income proof, the Tribunal has considered the income at the rate of 12,000/- per month, on the basis of income tax return, which pertains to single one year, is against the income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, at Rs.7,000/- per month for the year 2012. However, learned counsel does not dispute with the contentions of Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., that the claimants are entitled for the additional of future prospectus, loss of estate, filial consortium and 10% escalation.

¶59

Sri S. Srishaila, submits that as the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal must have considered the personal deductions at 50% instead of 1/3^rd . In the absence of any evidence to show that both the parents were dependent on the deceased, the case does not fall within the ambit that would justify applying the lesser deduction as considered by the Tribunal.

¶60

Sri S. Srishaila, is not in dissent with the submission

¶61

of Sri Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel, on the application of the multiplier.

¶62

In reply to the contentions of Sri S. Srishaila on

¶63

income Sri Ravishankar Shastry G., submits that the income

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46156 MFA No. 61 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 107 of 2016

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

tax return filed even for a single year can be considered while assessing the income. To buttress his argument, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjali Vs. Lokendra Rathod,¹ wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the returns filed for the financial year 2019-20 (single year) and assessed the income of the deceased based on the annual income shown therein. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that would arise for consideration before this Court is;

¶67

“whether the compensation awarded by the

¶68

Tribunal falls within the expression of just compensation.”

¶69

My answer to point is partly in affirmative for the

¶70

following:

¶71

REASONS

¶72

It is not in dispute that the deceased was 28 years as on the date of accident. As per the law laid down by the

¶73

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi

¶74

1 Civil Appeal No.009014/2022 (SLP CIVIL No.18808/2019) DD 06.12.2022

¶75

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46156 MFA No. 61 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 107 of 2016

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Transport Corporation & Anr.² and subsequently in the case of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi³ , the age of the deceased is conclusive factor for determining the multiplier to be applied.

¶78

Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi Supra, considering the age of deceased, 40% is to be added towards Future Prospectus. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anjali stated supra, the Tribunal rightly considered the income at Rs.12,000/- per month on the basis of income tax return placed on record.

¶79

This Court, in the absence of any document showing

¶80

that both the parents were dependent on the income of the deceased and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in Sarla Verma , considering that the deceased was a bachelor,

¶81

holds that 50% must be deducted towards personal expenses, as rightly contented by the learned counsel Sri. Srishaila. To that extent, the judgment passed by the Tribunal requires modification.

¶82

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶83

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶84

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46156 MFA No. 61 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 107 of 2016

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to re-

¶87

assess the compensation as follows:

¶88

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of Dependency (12,000+40%x12x17x50%)	17,13,600/-
2.	Loss of filial consortium	80,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	62,230/-
6.	20% Escalation (10% for each three completed years of two terms)	22,000/-
	TOTAL Rounded off to	19,07,830/- 19,08,000/-

¶89

The total re-determined compensation works out to

¶90

Rs.19,08,000/- as against Rs.11,93,230/-. The re-determined compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the rate of petition till relasation.

¶91

For the foregoing reasons, the point for consideration is answered accordingly, and this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:46156 MFA No. 61 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 107 of 2016

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

ORDER

¶96

i. Both the appeals filed by the claimant as well as the Insurer are allowed-in-part .

¶97

ii. The MFA No.107/2016 filed by the insurer is allowed in part only to the extent of deducting personal expenses from 1/3^rd to 50% and the award is modified accordingly. In all other respects the appeal stands dismissed .

¶98

iii. The amount on deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

¶99

iv. The appeal in M.F.A.No.61/2016 is allowed in part, modifying the judgment and award dated 01.09.2015 in M.F.A No.107/2016, passed by 01.09.2015, re-determining the compensation from Rs.11,93,232/to Rs.19,08,000/-.

¶100