The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt Gayathri K

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.6529/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, SCCH-1, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.25,93,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE

¶26

DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND

¶29

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶32

Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of

¶33

both Counsel, the matter is taken up for disposal.

¶34

Challenging quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, insurer has preferred this appeal.

¶35

Respondent Nos.1 to 5 were claimant Nos.1 to 5, respondent No.6 was respondent No.1 and appellant was respondent No.2 in MVC No.6529/2018 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Principal Motor

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1244-DB MFA No. 6674/2021

¶37

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-1). For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶38

Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are

¶39

the minor children and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of Anandachari. On 05.08.2018 at 12:30 p.m., when Anandachari was walking on the road near Shettigere cross of Doddapayalagurki village, Chikkaballapura Taluk, lorry bearing registration No.KA-51-AA-9317 hit him and caused his death. At the time of accident, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and insurer of offending lorry. Claimants filed MVC No.6529/2018 before the Tribunal claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per month from carpentry business and agriculture and they were all dependent on his income. They further claimed that accident occurred solely due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA-51-AA-9317. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-.

¶40

Respondent No.1 did not contest the matter. Respondent No.2/insurer contested the matter denying actionable negligence on the part of driver of insured lorry, age,

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1244-DB MFA No. 6674/2021

¶42

occupation, income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation.

¶43

To prove their case, claimants got examined claimant No.1 as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. Respondent did not lead any evidence.

¶44

The Tribunal on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and award held that the accident and consequential death of Anandachari occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of lorry bearing registration No.KA-51AA-9317. The Tribunal notionally assessed income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, added 25% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4^th for his personal expenses, applied 14 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.23,62,584/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded

¶45

compensation of Rs.25,93,000/- on different heads as follows:

¶46

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	23,62,584/-
2.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
3.	Loss of Consortium	40,000/-
4.	Funeral and ritual expenses	15,000/-
5.	Loss of Parental Consortium to petitioner Nos.2 and 3	80,000/-

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:1244-DB MFA No. 6674/2021

¶49

6. Loss of Filial Consortium to 80,000/- petitioner Nos.4 and 5 Total 25,92,584/- Rounded off to 25,93,000/-

¶50

Insurer has challenged the said award on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the higher side.

¶51

Sri Srikanth M.P, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no proof of actual income and notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He further submits that compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the higher side.

¶52

Sri. Gopal Krishna N, learned Counsel for claimants justifies the impugned award.

¶53

Considering the submissions of both side and on examining the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is “whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just one?”

¶54

Analysis :

¶55

Appellant/insurer has also not challenged the finding of the Tribunal that on 05.08.2018 Anandachari met with an accidental death due to the negligence of driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA-51-AA-9317. The relationship

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:1244-DB MFA No. 6674/2021

¶58

between the claimants and the deceased is not under dispute.

¶59

Though claimants contended that deceased was working as carpenter and agriculturist, earning Rs.50,000/- per month, except self-serving statement of PW.1, there was no proof of actual income. The accident occurred in the year 2018. Only B register extract of goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-40A-7677 was produced. Considering prevailing wage rates during 2018, notional income of Rs.15,000/- considered by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal reasonably could have considered the same at Rs.12,500/- per month. The deceased was aged 40 years and had no permanent employment. Therefore, having regard to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs . Pranay Sethi and Others¹ , 25% has to be super added to his income as future prospects. As the deceased had 5 dependants, as per the judgment of Supreme Court in

¶60

Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another² , 1/4^th has to be deducted for his personal expenses, and applicable multiplier is 14. Therefore, just compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency would be

¶61

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶62

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:1244-DB MFA No. 6674/2021

¶65

(12,500+3125=15,625 x 3/4=11,718.75, rounded to

¶66

11,719x12x14) = Rs.19,68,792/, rounded to Rs.19,68,800/-.

¶67

In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi ’ s case referred to supra, claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium with escalation of 10%. Similarly, on conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of dead body, claimants are entitled to sum of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/with escalation at 10%. Therefore, the just compensation payable is as follows:

¶68

Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	19,68,800/-
Loss of consortium	2,20,000/-
Loss of estate	16,500/-
Funeral expenses,	16,500/-
transportation of dead
body etc.,
Total	22,21,800/-
Awarded by Tribunal	25,93,000/-

¶69

The appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1244-DB MFA No. 6674/2021

¶73

The impugned award is modified as follows:

¶74

i. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.22,21,800/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶75

ii. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the said amount on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶76

iii. The order of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained.

¶77

iv. Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit, if any and TCRs to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶78

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶79

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶80

PKN

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Smt Gayathri K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Smt Gayathri K

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

Ramesh Poojary Vs Bharathi Bhat

Sri Valerian Rajesh Lobo Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Prakash S B Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

Sri M U Pradeepkumar Vs Smt H N Swetha

Sri. Pawan Kumar T.S. Vs Smt. Rashmi M

Smt Gangamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner