The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3607 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ASHWINI M L W/O LATE HARISH S, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 2. KUM. NAVYASHREE D/O LATE HARISH S, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, 3. MASTER MAMANTH H S/O LATE HARISH S, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka SINCE PETITIONER NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.ASHWINI M.L., 4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SRI SRINIVASAPPA @ SRINIVASAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS, CHOWDAREDDYPALYA, CHINTHAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125 (BY SRI. G M SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH NO.43, HAYAGREEVA NILAYA, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 056. (OWNER OF CAR BEARING REG NO.KA-41-MA-1336) 2. THE MANAGER TATA GEN. INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.69, 2ND FLOOR, JP AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 051. (POLICY NO.15629162500 VALID FROM 03.09.2016 TO 02.09.2017) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11/12/2018 IN MVC NO.3343/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-25), ETC THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT Though this appeal is posted for orders, with the
Legal Reasoning
consent of both the parties, taken for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in MVC.No.3343/2017 dated 11.12.2018, passed by the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-25). 3. The parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference. 4. The appellants/claimants filed petition seeking
Legal Reasoning
compensation in respect of death of Sri.Harish S., in a road traffic accident on 13.01.2017. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death of Sri. Harish S. are not in dispute. 5. Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their separate statement of objections to the claim petition. The respondent No.1 in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 his written statement admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and denied that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the vehicle. He has contended that the vehicle was covered with the insurance issued by the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and in the event if there is any liability, respondent No.2 has to indemnify him in view of the valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. 6. The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company in its written statement has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle but denied the rash and negligence alleged and had taken a contention that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. 7. The claimants – appellants to prove their case, examined appellant No.1 as PW-1 and produced 14 documents and marked them as Exs.P.1 to P.14. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 respondent No.2 – Insurance Company examined its Chief Manager as RW-1 but not produced any documents. 8. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record so also the arguments, held that the claimants – appellants are entitled for the following compensation:- 1. Loss of Dependency and Future : Rs. 15,18,840/- prospects 2. Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000/- 3. Funeral and transportation : Rs. 15,000/- expenses 4. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 15,88,840/- 9. Insofar as liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Tribunal in paragraph No.13 of its judgment held that the charge sheet (Ex.P.2) has been filed against the driver of the vehicle invoking Sections 3 and 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for short). The respondent No.1 – owner though appeared and filed written statement has not refuted the contention of respondent No.2 – Insurance - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 Company by placing proper evidence regarding the licence, to show that the driver of offending vehicle was having driving licence at the time of accident. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on respondent No.1 and exonerated respondent No.2 – Insurance Company from liability to indemnify respondent No.1 – owner. 10. The claimants are before this Court in the present case for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability fastened on the respondent No.1 – owner as well, raising a ground in the appeal at ground No.K in page No.10, which reads as follows:- “The Tribunal, while passing the Judgment and Award, fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2015 KERALA 1316, AIR 2018 SC 3726 & AIR 2018 SC 2662.” 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Trial Court Record. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the accident has occurred in the year 2017. As per the income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income for the year ‘2017’ is fixed as Rs.11,000/- p.m., whereas the Tribunal has taken income at Rs.9,000/- and submits that the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is required to be modified and enhanced by awarding suitable compensation taking into consideration of the income supra. 13. It is his further submission that the Tribunal has failed to award the compensation under the conventional heads i.e., filial compensation in respect of other claimants i.e., children and mother of the deceased. He further contented that, in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another1 at paragraph Nos.15 to 20 that, in case of third party, even if the insurer succeeds in 1 (2018) 3 SCC 208 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the Court can still direct the Insurance Company shall pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. 14. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not requires any interference at the hands of this Court either on quantum or on liability. 15. The points that would arise for consideration before this Court are as under:- 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the year of accident, is just and proper within the meaning of ‘just compensation’? 2. Whether order of the Tribunal exonerating respondent No.2 – Insurance Company in toto and fastening the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 liability on the respondent No.1 – owner to pay the compensation, requires any interference/modification? My answer in respect of point No.1 is ‘Negative’ and insofar as point No.2 is concerned, it is ‘Partly in the Affirmative’. Regarding Point No.1:- 16. The date of accident i.e., 13.01.2017, involvement of vehicle and the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, are not in dispute. The Tribunal has taken the income of deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and added 25% of income towards future prospects as the deceased was working in a private sector. 17. In the absence of any evidence regarding proof of income, taking into consideration of notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the year 2017 at Rs.11,000/-, the loss of dependency requires reconsideration. The income of the deceased is taken at Rs.11,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken future prospects of the deceased at the rate of 25%. As - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 per principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi2, as the deceased was 36 years at the time death i.e., below 40 years, 40% of income required to be added towards loss of future prospects of life. Hence, adding 40% towards future prospects, the income of the deceased would comes at Rs.15,400/- per month. The claimant was aged 36 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘15’. As there are four dependants survived the deceased, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another3. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:- (Rs.15,400 x 12 x 15 x 3/4) = Rs.20,79,000/- 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 3 AIR 2009 SCC 3104 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 18. Insofar as ‘loss of consortium’ is concerned, in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi stated supra as well as in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others4, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each be awarded towards ‘filial consortium’ to the dependants of the deceased (i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 4). 19. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of consortium’, to the wife, ‘transportation and funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ does not call for any interference. However, 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 escalation of 10% on the conventional heads once in three years. Taking into consideration of the same, the compensation for two term of 3 years, escalation towards ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and 4 2018 ACJ 2782 5 (2022) 2 SC 767 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 ‘transportation and funeral expenses’, comes to Rs.1,92,000/- (48,000 x 4), Rs.18,000/-, and Rs.18,000/- (20%+20%+20%) and works out to be Rs.2,28,000/-. 20. In summary, the total compensation re-determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 20,79,000/- 2. Loss of Estate : Rs. 18,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 18,000/- 4. Filial Consortium : Rs. 1,92,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 23,07,000/- 21. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to be Rs.23,07,000/- as against Rs.15,88,840/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,18,160/- (Rs.23,07,000/- – Rs.15,88,840/-) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 Regarding Point No.2:- 22. Insofar as point No.2 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu and others stated supra, at paragraph No.19, held as follows:- “19. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) had produced the insurance certificate indicating that vehicle No. DIL- 5955 was comprehensively insured by the respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) for unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), to subserve the ends of justice, the insurer (respondent No.2) shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) in accordance with law.” In view of the same, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the compensation enhanced in this appeal along with interest awarded by the Tribunal and this Court i.e., Rs.15,88,840/- with 8% p.a. plus Rs.7,18,160/- with 6% p.a. with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 vehicle in accordance with law. To that extent, the liability is modified. 23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: i) ii)
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed-in-part; The judgment and award dated 11.12.2018, in MVC.No.3343/2017 passed by the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-25) is modified; iii) The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,18,160/- (Rs.23,07,000/- – Rs.15,88,840/-) along with interest at 6% per annum in addition to Rs.15,88,840/- with 8% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till realization. iv) The total compensation along with interest stated above shall be deposited by the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12000 MFA No. 3607 of 2019 respondent No.2 – Insurance Company within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.1 – owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. v) The other observations regarding the apportionment and disbursement of compensation are kept in tact. vi) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4