Ajay Gupta Vs the Manager Universal Sompo Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 15.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.250/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-5), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 15.11.2022 passed in MVC No.250/2022 by VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) Bengaluru (for short 'the tribunal'). This appeal

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶31

is founded on the premise of inadequate and meagre compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶32

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

¶33

Brief facts of the case are that one Miss Aakanksha Gupta, daughter of the claimants, aged 20 years, studying in 5^th semester Engineering at BMS College, Bengaluru. On 07.11.2021 at about 3:45 a.m., she was travelling in a Car bearing registration No.KA-03-AH-6189 along with her friends, when the Car reached near Joddagate Village, Madbal Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, the Driver of the Car by name Aashish Raju, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner applied brake suddenly and took a turn and lost control and due to the impact, the Car turtled on the left side, as a result, the inmate Miss Aakanksha Gupta sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶35

The claimants, who are the unfortunate parents on the sudden and unfortunate death of their daughter filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents, the owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company.

¶36

The respondents appeared and filed statement of objections, denied the claim of the claimants, disputing negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle and sought for dismissal of claim petition.

¶37

Based on the materials placed on record both oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.23,78,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum, directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within 60 days to the claimants in the ratio of 40:60 to claimants Nos.1 and 2. This judgement and award which is questioned by the claimants on the ground that the same is inadequate and they have sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶39

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the claimants that the tribunal has not considered the materials placed on record and suffice the qualification of the deceased for awarding compensation including assessment of the income and thereby the judgement and award passed by the tribunal is illegal, erroneous and the same requires to be substantially enhanced. Taking into consideration that the deceased Aakanksha Gupta was studying in the 3rd year of her Engineering and she had bright future ahead in her life and she would have supported her parents post her Engineering course. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the petition. Consequently, enhance the compensation.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following judgements in support of his case to contend that the income is to be taken at Rs.25,000/- by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions referred to are here in below:-

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶42

1) 2020 0 Supreme (Kar) 104 in Sri. Mallikarjun S/o Yallappa Jogannavar and others - vs- Sri. Umesh M S/o Murthy.K and others.

¶43

2) Smt. Sunanda W/o Rajashekhar Angadi and others -vs- Husensab s/o Maibusab Hanagi and others in MFA No.100273/2023 dated 30.05.2024.

¶44

3) The Managing Director, BMTC -vs- Vimala and another in MFA No.1403/2020 c/w MFA No.4854/2020 dated 24.04.2024.

¶45

4) Sri. Kotreshappa.A and others -vs- Oriental Assurance Company Limited and another in MFA No.8957/2019 dated 10.12.2024.

¶46

Per Contra , learned counsel Sri. D.Vijayakumar representing the Insurance Company vehemently contends

¶47

that the judgement and award passed by the tribunal is justified, it is sustainable. Admittedly, no proof of income is produced for the simple reason that deceased Aakanksha Gupta was a student of 3^rd year Engineering and she was yet to complete her course of Engineering and she was not employed so the question of awarding income to a student would not arise, as only a nominal

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶49

income can be taken for a student or not that of a person, who has cleared her Engineering and secured a job. He also vehemently contends that in the present day scenario, even the Engineering students having passed out from the college despite 2 to 4 years are unable to secure job and in the present case, the tribunal having assessed the income of Rs.15,000/-per month itself is on the higher side. He also refutes the contentions of the learned counsel for the claimants that awarding of income at the rate of Rs.25,000/- is exorbitantly high. The same cannot be done though the judgements of this Court are relied by the claimants on the ground that several students having passed out in Engineering are unable to secure job and it will be unreasonable if Rs.25,000/- is awarded as income to a Engineering student of 3rd year. On these grounds, he contends that the judgement passed by the tribunal is sustainable and seeks for dismissal of this appeal.

¶50

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents - Insurance

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶52

Company. The occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle and the student having succumbed to the injuries due to the road traffic accident are proved and established by production of exhibits P-1 to P-16. The same is not questioned or challenged. Hence, the negligence attributed against the Driver of the offending vehicle in which the deceased was travelling is correct and it is proved.

¶53

Now, coming to the question of age, avocation, income, appropriate multiplier, deduction and addition for awarding compensation, it is seen that the age of the deceased as on date of occurrence of accident was 20 years and she was in the 5^th semester of Engineering course in a prestigious BMS College of engineering, she was in a 3rd year of Engineering. The appropriate multiplier would be '18', which is correctly taken by the tribunal, same does not call for interference. The income taken by the tribunal is Rs.15,000/-.

¶54

Consistently, income at Rs.25,000/- for students is taken, who are pursuing technical education in

¶55

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶56

Engineering or medical. These orders are not questioned/challenged by the Insurance Companies. Therefore, income in the present case is taken at Rs.25,000/- per month. In view of the deceased being aged less than 40 years, 40% would have to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased was unmarried, 50% would have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month with an addition of 40% towards future prospects and deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses. The income would be Rs.17,500/- for applying the multiplier at '18'. The compensation amount towards loss of dependency would be Rs.37,80,000/-(17,500/-x18x12) as against Rs.22,68,000/awarded by the tribunal. Towards consortium, as there are 2 dependants each would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- per person, 10% would have to be added towards escalation Rs.8,000/- is added. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- is added. Towards funeral

¶57

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶58

expenses Rs.15,000/- as awarded by the tribunal is retained.

¶59

In view of the above discussions, the appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.38,98,000/-. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶62

ii) The judgment and award dated 15.11.2022 passed in MVC.No.250/2022 by VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) Bengaluru, is modified;

¶63

iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.38,98,000/- along with interest at 6% as against Rs.23,78,000/-.

¶64

iv) The balance compensation shall be paid by the respondent No.1-Insurance Company within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:10250 MFA No. 796 of 2023

¶67

v) The other stipulations of apportionment at the rate of 40:60 to the appellant Nos.1 and 2 as ordered by the tribunal is retained. So also with regard to deposit and release of the amount as ordered by the tribunal is retained.

¶68

Ordered accordingly.

¶69

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶70

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT:SNN

Ajay Gupta v. the Manager Universal Sompo Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

Ajay Gupta v. the Manager Universal Sompo 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

Smt. Latha. R Vs Smt. Jayasudha. M

Sri Channareddy Patil Tunnuru Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Arathi a Lad Vs State S I T Lokayuktha

Smt Yallavva Kumar Kandli @ Yallavva Vs Ramesh D.H.

Shobha. N Vs Shivappa. M

Smt. Thilagaveni Vs Smt.Maheswai