M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL v. SMT. MANGALA S.Y

(BY SRI RAVI S.SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND:

1. SMT. MANGALA S.Y W/O LATE S.B.YESHWANT AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

2. SRI MANJUNATH S.Y. S/O LATE S.B.YESHWANT AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.253/C, TYPE-2 R.W.F. WEST COLONY YELAHANKA TOWN BENGALURU-560 064.

3. SRI BASAVARAJ S.Y. S/O LATE S.B.YESHWANT AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

4. SMT. SATTAVVA W/O LATE BHIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT POST BORGAL TALUK HUKKERI, DISTRICT BELGAUM. AT PRESENT ALL ARE R/AT: NO.291/27, 2ND CROSS SRIGANDHA LAYOUT VEERSAGAR ROAD, ATTUR LAYOUT YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560 064.

5. MRS. DEEPTHI DANDA W/O HARIPRADAS REDDY, MAJOR NO.003, NEAR ELITE APARTMENTS AMBALIPURA, OPP: BANNERGHATTA ROAD - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 102. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DAKSHAYANI D.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SOMAPUR H.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH V/C/O DATED 04.03.2021) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.2413/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.70,47,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS/ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. The present appeals seek to challenge the common Judgment Award

19.08.2020 M.V.C.No.2413/2018 passed by the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR claimants in a sum of Rs.70,47,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

2. The Appeals though listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties are taken up for final hearing and disposal today itself.

3. M.F.A.No.233/2021 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and M.F.A.No.5244/2020 is filed by the Insurance Company seeking modification/ reduction of the compensation.

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 21.02.2018 at about 9.30 a.m. when the deceased was going to factory from Yelahanka IV Stage by riding his Honda Activa Bearing No.KA-50-J-1997 and when he entered Bengaluru–Doddaballapura stopped motorcycle near Puttenahalli junction, a car bearing Registration No.KA-51-MF-8410 driven by its driver rashly and negligently came to the extreme left side from the right side of the road leading towards Doddaballapura and collided with the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR deceased sustained severe injuries. He was immediately taken to Yelahanka Railway Hospital. After first aid treatment, he was shifted to Ramaiah Memorial Hospital in which he was treated as inpatient and surgery was done. However, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.

5. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’) was filed by the wife, two children and a dependent mother of the deceased contending that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a Senior Technician in Rail Wheel Factory, Yelahanka and getting salary of Rs.94,000/- per month.

6. The claim petition was contested by respondent No.1/Insurance Company by filing written statement and additional written statement. Respondent No.2 the owner of the car remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.

6.1. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: that deceased the petitioners prove “(i) Whether S.B.Yeshwant succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident alleged to have occurred on 21.02.2018 - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-51-MF-8410? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom? (iii) What order or award?”

6.2. In order to prove the case of the claimants, the claimant No.1/wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1, and three other witnesses Sri Prabhu Neelange, an eyewitness as PW.2, Sri A. Mohan, the employer as PW.3 and Dr. Basappa S. Hugar as PW.4 and got 32 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P32 including Ex.P1/FIR, Ex.P3/ spot mahazar, Ex.P5/IMV Report, Ex.P10/Charge sheet. In addition, medical documents were exhibited which included Ex.P6/Discharge Summary, Ex.P9/Postmortem Report, Ex.P17/Two medical bills and Ex.P18/Ambulance Bill. As proof of the income of the deceased, Ex.P15/Copy of the Identify Card and Ex.P16/Salary Certificate were marked.

6.3. No evidence was produced nor documents were marked on behalf of respondent No.1/Insurance Company.

6.4. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence produced, held that the deceased had sustained injuries - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR due to fall from the motorcycle that he was riding and there was no dispute as to the accident. In addition, the learned Tribunal found that the complaint was lodged at Yelahanka Traffic Police, in view of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and based on which, a complaint was lodged and FIR was registered. Ex.P7/the death memo had also been sent to the police and Ex.P10/the charge sheet was filed by the police invoking Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code 1860.

6.5 In view of this corroborative evidence, the learned Tribunal found that negligence was caused due to the negligence of the driver to an extent of 90% and remaining negligence was attributed to the deceased at 10%. Thus, the learned Tribunal deducted 10% from the amounts of compensation awarded. After examining the salary certificate and deducting income tax of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.200/- towards professional tax, the monthly salary of the deceased was taken Rs.82,930/-.

6.6. Since the deceased was aged 56 years, respondent No.1/Insurance Company averred that the split multiplier - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR method be used to calculate loss of dependency. However, the learned Tribunal relied on the judgment in Puttamma Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy1 where the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific reason and evidence on record, the split multiplier should not be applied in routine courses and the multiplier should be applied as per the settled law. The multiplier was taken at 9 and future prospects at 15%. Thus, the income of the deceased was taken at a sum of Rs.95,369/.

6.7. Accordingly, after considering the materials on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation under loss of estate and funeral and transportation. The compensation awarded was as follows: Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of Dependency 77,24,916/- Loss of Consortium Loss of Estate Funeral & Transportation Expenses 40,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 5 Medical Expenses TOTAL 35,262/- 78,30,178/- 1 (2013) 15 SCC 45 - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR

6.8. However, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,47,160/- deducting 10% contributory negligence by the deceased and awarded interest at 9% awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till its realization.

7. As stated above, the Appeals have been filed by the claimants as well as the Insurance Company and has been contested by both the parties.

8. Learned Counsel for the claimants submits that the loss of dependency has been wrongly calculated. In addition she submits, that the amounts of compensation awarded on other heads including the loss of consortium has not been awarded in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2.

9. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance Company on the other hand refute these contentions. He further states that loss of dependency was correctly calculated as was the contributory negligence. In addition, 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR learned Counsel the respondent No.1/Insurance Company submits that the split multiplier method should have been taken. He further contends that no additional amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that the interest awarded is too high.

10. Based on the evidence and the documents produced, the questions that arise for consideration before this Court are: (i) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law? (ii) Whether amounts required to be deducted on account of contributory negligence were in accordance with law?

11. From the examination of the award, there is no dispute that there was negligence on the part of the offending vehicle/the car. The learned Tribunal based on the evidence of the PW.2 /eyewitness as well as IMV Report held that there was some negligence on the part of - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR the rider of the motorcycle of the deceased. It was found that the deceased had entered into a main road from ancillary road and that he had not followed the ‘halt and proceed’ rule before entering the main road. In view thereof, since he came onto the road all of a sudden, the car would not have been able to avoid the impact. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the Impugned Award as under. “14. Here in this case, the evidence of eyewitness, Prabhu (PW2) is available. During his cross- examination, he has admitted that at the time of accident the deceased had entered upon the main road from the cross road. Further he has stated that it may be true that the deceased has hit the front left wheel of the car. If this part of the evidence coupled with the admission given by him is taken into account, it becomes quite clear that at the time of accident the deceased had not stopped his scooter as pleaded, but he had already entered on the main road. Hence, it appears that for this reason the IMV report relating to the car is not produced deliberately. So therefore, I am of the view that the scenario of the accident as depicted in the sketch and projected by the petitioners is incorrect.

15. On the other hand, having regard to the place of occurrence, I am of the humble opinion that the deceased should have tried to proceed to enter on the main road from the cross road after the car had gone ahead. If he had followed “halt and proceed” rule before entering on the main road seeing the car coming nearby, definitely the accident would not have occurred. It is relevant to note that if any vehicle appears on the road all of a sudden, it is impossible for the other road users to avoid the impact. It seems to the tribunal that since the deceased had entered on the main - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR road suddenly the driver of the car might have hit the scooter. Thus it is clear that the accident has taken place because of the contributory negligence of the deceased.

16. Neither it is the case of the insurance company nor is there contra evidence to show that the driver of the offending vehicle has tried his level best to avoid the accident by slowing down the speed or blowing the horn. According to my opinion, supposing he had slowed down the speed of his vehicle or blown the horn, perhaps the accident could have been avoided. But car driver has not been examined to indicate that he had done so. As such, it is held that the car driver is also responsible for the accident. Having regard to the place of occurrence and the manner in which the accident has happened, 10% of the contributory negligence is attributed to the deceased and the remaining 90% to the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 partly in the affirmative.” [Emphasis Supplied]

12. The analysis of above are based on the documents and evidence produced and does not suffer from any infirmity. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

13. So far as concerns on the award of compensation, the learned Tribunal has taken into account the salary of the deceased as well as deducted professional and income tax from it. The learned Tribunal has also found that after deducting these two amounts the monthly income of the deceased has been taken at Rs.82,930/-. The learned - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR Tribunal has also found that since the deceased was 56 years of age, 15% future prospects have to be awarded and the multiplier of 9 has to be taken into consideration. Thus the income of the deceased has been calculated as follows: Rs.82,930/- + 15%+ of Rs.82,930/- = Rs.95,369/-

14. The learned Tribunal also found that although the claimants stated that they were getting additional agricultural income, no documents or proof of such income was produced. Thus it was not taken into consideration. To this extent this Court finds that the calculation of income on the aspect of loss of dependency is in accordance with settled principles of law.

15. The only aspect of the compensation which requires to be enhanced in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, is the loss of consortium. Concededly the deceased had four family members. Thus loss of consortium would be Rs.40,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/-. - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR

16. On the issue of split multiplier, the learned Tribunal has rightly found that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Puttama case, which has been subsequently followed in N. Jayasree and Others v. Cholamandam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.3 wherein the applicability of the split multiplier has been done away with. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: “28. In Puttamma vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy. [(2013) 15 SCC 45] this Court was again considering a case where split multiplier for the purpose dependency calculation compensation was applied. It was held thus: “32. For determination of compensation in motor accident claims under Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in the selection of a multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma prepared a table for the selection of a multiplier based on the age group of the deceased/victim. The 1988 Act, does not envisage application of a split multiplier.

33. In K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer, this Court held as follows: “14. In the appeal which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High 3 (2022) 14 SCC 712 - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the 2nd column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6.

15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, future for having not considered the prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method.

34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the tribunal or the court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in Sarla Verma as affirmed in Reshma Kumari.” [Emphasis Supplied]

16.1. Thus, this aspect does not require any further consideration by this Court.

17. On the said aspect of the interest to be awarded by the Tribunal, one of us, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, has in a recent judgment captioned United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M And Others4, after analyzing the precedents of the Supreme Court and this 4 2026 SCC Online Kar 4090 - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR Court, has found that an award of 9% interest is in accordance with the settled provisions in the present day scenario, especially in cases of of death and permanent disability. It was held that the award of 9% interest has been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the judgment below: “15. The other issue raised is on interest awarded. It is apposite to set out the applicable provision. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’] provides for the award of interest in the following manner: “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. - Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.”

15.1 A plain reading of the said provision shows that Section 171 of the MV Act does not prescribe any rate of interest and gives the discretion to the learned Tribunal to do so. It further sets out that the Tribunal shall award simple interest from the date of filing the claim.

16. Interest is the compensation for the factum of money being held back from the family of a deceased or the injured. The Courts have from time to time while discussing the principles for award of interest, held that the interest is awarded not because of any contractual obligation but because of the delay in claimants occurrence of the accident. compensation after receiving - 17 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR

16.1 In Abati Bezbaruah vs. Geological Survey of India5, the Supreme Court has held that the interest rate must be fixed by taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by RBI from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. It was further held that Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 nor Section 4A(3) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 are applicable in fixing the rate of interest. The relevant extract is below: “18. Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on in support of his behalf of the appellant, contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of is compensation law. Interest 5 (2003) 3 SCC 148 - 18 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4-A(3) the Workmen’s Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court as indicated above.” [Emphasis Supplied]

19. The Supreme Court in Supe Dei (Smt) and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another6 affirmed that 9% per annum is an appropriate and consistently applied rate of interest in motor accident compensation cases, reinforcing uniformity in such awards. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below: “11. Coming to the question of interest this Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. observed that 9% is the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded and that rate is being applied in motor accident compensation cases.” [Emphasis Supplied] [

20. However recently, the Supreme Court in Jagadish vs. Mohan7 awarded interest at 9% per annum on compensation, reaffirming appropriate in cases involving death, serious injury and substantial loss. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below: that such rate “15. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to compute the disability at 90%. The disability is indeed total. Having regard to the age of the ORDER (i) M.F.A.No.233/2021 is allowed in part; (ii) M.F.A.No.5244/2020 is dismissed. (iii) The Judgement and Award dated 19.08.2020 in M.V.C.No.2413/2018 passed by the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is modified, enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,08,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of petition till realization. (iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. (v) Respondent No.1 is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. Any amounts deposited with this Court will be forwarded to the Tribunal for onward transmission. (vi) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellants/claimants on - 27 - NC: 2026:KHC:30582-DB MFA No.233 of 2021 C/W MFA No.5244 of 2020 HC-KAR filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the amount in the proportion as was set out in the Impugned Award. (vii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (viii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment and the records to the concerned Tribunal. (ix) Pending application(s), if any, stand closed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KSR/BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 - 28 -