The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3664 OF 2019 BETWEEN: (MV-D) THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VENKATESHWARA BUILDING, OPP: SBI MAIN BRANCH, HASSAN THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGER MR. ADISESH T N (BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S, ADVOCATE) … APPELLANT AND: 1. SRI. A H RAMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SRI. HANUMANTAIAH, 2. SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O SRI. A.H.RAMESH Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF ANGADIHALLI VILLAGE, HAGARE POST, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201
Legal Reasoning
3. SRI. A.K.MANJUNATH MAJOR IN AGE, S/O SRI. KALLAPPA, ANGADIHALLI VILLAGE, MADIHALLI HOBLI, HAGARE POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT PIN – 573 201 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2024, NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1765/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., BELUR, EXAMINE THE SAME TO JUST LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though this appeal is posted for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. This appeal by the appellant – insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.02.2019, in MVC No.1765/2016, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death of A.R.Yuvaraj an adolescent aged 15 years in the accident and the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation is not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the monthly income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month and ‘filial consortium’ at Rs.1,40,000/-. 3. Heard Sri.Krishna Kishore.S, learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR Sri.Somashekara K.M., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Notice issued on respondent No.3 was held sufficient. Perused the records. 4. Sri.Kishore, vehemently submits that the deceased was aged 15 years as on the date of the accident and was not an earning member in view of his age. The Tribunal has committed serious error in taking the income at Rs.10,000/- p.m. He has further stated that the Tribunal has also erred in granting Rs.1,40,000/- towards ‘filial consortium’ to the parents, which is against the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. On this, he seeks to allow the appeal and modify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company, Sri.Somashekara K.M., submitted that the deceased was the only son to the respondents–claimants. Though the deceased was an adolescent, aged 15 years at the time of the death, he was hale and healthy and doing coolie work and also helping in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR the household work and was a source of income to the family. He has further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1 while determining the multiplier in accidental claims, has taken into consideration persons from the age group of 15 years and onwards. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be modified by awarding suitable enhancement, taking note of the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (for short ‘KSLSA’) for the year 2016. To buttress his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA AND OTHERS VS. BABUJI.M AND OTHERS2. In the said judgment, this Court has taken the notional income as fixed by the KSLSA, though the deceased was 17 years, at the time of death. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 MFA No.102268/2019, dtd. 13.11.2020 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR 6. Upon hearing both the sides and perusing the materials on record, the only point that arise for consideration in this appeal is as follows: “Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?” 7. My answer to the above point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons: Admittedly, the accident has occurred in the year 2016, as per the chart prepared by the KSLSA, the notional income fixed is at Rs.9,500/- per month for the year 2016. The deceased was aged 15 years old an adolescent, the appropriate multiplier as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA is ‘18’. In the judgment of CHETANA supra, the age of the deceased was 17 years old at the time of the accident and was a student and was doing milk vending business and was a earning member of the family. In the case on hand, the deceased was 15 years old, a student was studying 9th - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR standard, as contended by the claimants before the Tribunal. However, they have not produced any document to show that the deceased was admitted to school, though they have taken a contention that he was doing coolie work and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. However, in the absence of any documents, to that effect this Court feels the deceased being an adolescent and not a child, it is safe and proper to take the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- p.m. 8. Considering the fact that the deceased was the only son to respondent Nos.1 and 2 / claimants and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS PRANAY SETHI3, 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects. Since the deceased was an adolescent, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses. On redetermination of the loss of dependency, the same works out as follows: 3 2017 (16) SCC 680 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR Rs.6,500 + 2,600 (40%) - 4,550 (50%) x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,82,800/-. 9. It is on record that the deceased was an inpatient for a period of eight days and succumbed to the injuries. As per the bills produced at Exhibits-P12 to P39, a sum of Rs.2,51,063/- has been incurred by the parents of the deceased, towards medical expenses, the Tribunal has rounded off the same as Rs.2,51,000/-. However, at para- 12 of the order of the Tribunal, ‘MEDICAL EXPENSES’ is stated as Rs.2,50,000/- instead of Rs.2,51,000/-. 10. The Tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation towards ‘Filial Consortium’ at Rs.1,40,000/-. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU RAM & OTHERS4 the claimants being parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘Filial Consortium’. Accordingly, 4 2018 ACJ 2782 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2) is awarded under the said head. Further, 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 enhancement of 10% on the conventional heads for every three years. Taking into consideration the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of consortium’, being Rs.80,000/-, the escalation at 10%+10% works out to Rs.16,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants / claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.96,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2 + 20%) towards ‘Loss Of Consortium’ including Loss Of Love And Affection’. 11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘FUNERAL EXPENSES AND OBSEQUIES’ AND ‘LOSS OF ESTATE’ at Rs.30,000/- is just and 5 (2022) 2 SC 767 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR proper and does not require any interference. However, 10% + 10% escalation is awarded. Therefore, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 x 10% + 10%) is awarded towards ‘Loss Of Estate’ And ‘Funeral And Transportation’. 12. So far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest per annum, without there being any material on record and discussion in the judgment. In the absence of any specific material regarding the rate of interest, the interest on the compensation as in general would be at 6% per annum. 13. In summary, the total compensation re- determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 9,82,800/- 2. Loss of Estate : Rs. 18,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 18,000/- 4. Filial Consortium : Rs. 96,000/- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR 5. Medical Expenses : Rs. 2,51,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 13,65,800/- 15. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.13,65,800/- as against Rs.15,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, instead of 9%. The appellant - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Six Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i) The appeal is Allowed-In-Part; ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 27.02.2019, in MVC No.1765/2016, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur, is modified; - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14573 MFA No. 3664 of 2019 HC-KAR iii) The claimants – respondents are entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,65,800/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. iv) The compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant - Insurance Company, within Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. v) Amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned forthwith, without any delay for disbursement. vi) Condition of apportionment and disbursement are as per the order of the Tribunal. vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3