Karnataka High Court
Bikash Prasad @ Vikas Prasad vs Mr Pushpak Jindal on 23 October, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
MFA No. 1923 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1923 OF 2020
(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. BIKASH PRASAD @ VIKAS PRASAD
S/O JAYANANDAN PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
F/O VATSAL SETU,
2. SMT SUDHA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O BIKASH PRASAD @ VIKAS PRASAD,
M/O LATE VATSAL SETU,
3. MR.SHASWAT
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O SRI BIKASH PRASAD,
BRO/O LATE VATSAL SETU,
Digitally signed by 4. MISS.KISLAYA
KIRAN KUMAR R
Location: High
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
Court of Karnataka D/O SRI BIKAS PRASAD,
SIS/O LATE VATSAL SETU,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.105, ROAD NO.3,
KATIYA BASTI, PATRATU, PATRATU RAMGARH,
JARKHAND-829119.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR PUSHPAK JINDAL
S/O MAHESH CHAND JINDAL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
MFA No. 1923 of 2020
R/O NO.54, JANAPRIYA SOCIETY,
KENCHANHALLI,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-98.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
MOTOR T P HUB,
5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.KRISHNA KISHORE., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022 NOTICE TO R-1
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO. 7949/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-7),
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. On 23.12.2016, the parents and two siblings of
Vatsal Setu filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They stated that Vatsal Setu,
who was aged 23 years, was working as a trainee software
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
engineer in MPHASIS Co. and was drawing a salary of
Rs.26,000/- per month. They stated that on 17.01.2012,
while Vatsal Setu was riding pillion on the motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA01-EV-8168 owned by one
Pushpak Jindal-the 1st respondent, the subject accident
occurred due to the alleged rash and negligent riding of
motorcycle by Murali Manohar Thakur, by which he lost
control of the vehicle and went off the road before falling
into a ditch, as a result of which Vatsal Setu suffered
grievous injuries and was admitted to BGS Global Hospital
where he succumbed to his injuries on 28.01.2012.
2. It was stated that Vatsal Setu was admitted
unconscious to the hospital and was in coma till his death,
and the hospital authorities have prepared a MLC memo
and sent it to the concerned police authorities. It was
stated Murali Manohar Thakur had himself informed the
claimants about the accident and, in light of the MLC
memo, the police had visited the hospital several times
and the claimants were, therefore, under an impression
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
that the case had been registered and was pending
investigation.
3. It was stated that after Vatsal Setu passed away,
neither the hospital authorities nor the police took any
responsibility to perform an autopsy of the dead body
though it was a MLC case, and the 1st claimant paid the
entire medical charges to secure the body of Vatsal Setu
and took the same for cremation to their native place in
Jharkhand. It was stated that, all along, the police were
assuring them that they would inform the 1st claimant
about the progress of the case and the claimants, being
residents of Jharkhand, were waiting for the police to
inform them.
4. It was stated that after a period of two or three
years, they came to Bengaluru to collect the documents
from police and were then informed that there had been
no case registered in the police station in respect of the
accident/death of Vatsal Setu.
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
5. It was stated that they immediately obtained legal
advice and proceeded to lodge a complaint with the
Kengeri police, but the Kengeri police failed to enquire into
the accident properly and closed the case without
submitting a chargesheet.
6. It may be pertinent to state here that in the claim
petition it was specifically stated that Vatsal Setu was the
pillion rider and this was admitted by Murali Manohar
Thakur who himself had given a statement in the hospital
that he was riding the motorcycle and that Vatsal Setu
was riding pillion in his motorcycle.
7. The claimants ultimately sought for just
compensation.
8. The owner of the motorcycle-Pushpak Jindal, though
served with notice of the claim petition, did not enter
appearance and was consequently placed ex parte.
9. The Insurer entered appearance and filed objections
contesting the matter. The Insurer filed lengthy objections
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
denying all assertions made in the claim petition. Though
the occurrence of the accident was also not admitted, the
Insurer took up a specific stand in the following terms:
"5. This respondent do not admits to have issued
policy No.07050031110160030397 for the period
between 27-12-2011 to 26-12-2012 in respect of
Motor Cycle No.KA.01-EV-8168 in favour of first
Respondent herein and the liability of the second
respondent is subject to the terms, conditions
exceptions and limitations thereof and the
confirmation of the compliance of Sec.64 BV of the
Insurance Act, 1938. However, in the present case,
the second respondent company is not required to
indemnify the first respondent for the reason that
Mr.Vatsal Setu was riding the said Bike at the time
of accident, he lost control over the same and
suffered fatal injuries. Mr.Murali Manohar Thakur,
was not riding the said Motor Cycle at the time of so
called accident as alleged by claimants. Since the
deceased alone was at fault for the cause of
accident, the claim petition is liable to be rejected as
the same is not maintainable in the eye of law."
10. Thus, by this defence that Vatsal Sethu was riding
the motorcycle when the accident occurred, the Insurer
basically admitted the accident and it only denied the
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
assertion that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion and took up
the plea that it was Murali Manohar Thakur who was riding
pillion.
11. The Tribunal, on consideration of pleadings and
evidence adduced, has come to the conclusion that the
claimants had failed to prove that Vatsal Setu was riding
pillion on the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle,
who was riding the motorcycle, had driven it rashly and
negligently, lost control and the vehicle had gone off the
road before falling into the ditch, which resulted in the
death of Vatsal Setu.
12. The Tribunal has observed that the 1st claimant i.e.,
the father of Vatsal Setu had lodged a complaint about the
accident dated 17.01.2012 only on 22.11.2013 and there
was a delay of 675 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal
has further observed that though the 1st claimant had
come to Bengaluru on 19.01.2012 and was in Bengaluru
till 28.01.2012 i.e., the day on which Vatsal Setu died, he
had not chosen to lodge a complaint. The Tribunal has
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
taken note of Ex.P6 - the letter issued by BGS Hospital in
which it was stated that Vatsal Setu suffered injuries due
to a fall from the motorcycle and, therefore, no MLC was
registered and the dead body was also not subjected to an
autopsy.
13. The Tribunal has also observed that there was a
lapse on the part of hospital in this regard, but it was
incumbent on the claimants to have lodged a complaint
immediately and no acceptable reason was forthcoming
from the claimants as to what prevented them from
lodging a complaint either immediately or after the death
of Vatsal Setu.
14. The Tribunal has disregarded Ex.P.47, which
contained a statement of Murali Manohar Thakur to the
effect that he was riding a motorcycle, on the ground that
the claimants had not chosen to examine Murali Manohar
Thakur to prove the contents of the document, though he
was the material witness to prove their case.
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
15. The Tribunal has also observed that no eye witnesses
were examined to speak about the occurrence of the
accident and the claimants were obligated to produce
substantial evidence as to whether Vatsal Setu was
proceeding as a pillion rider and that Murali Manohar
Thakur was riding the motorcycle rashly and negligently.
16. The Tribunal has reasoned that merely because the
motorcycle of Pushpak Jindal was involved in the accident,
that would not be a ground to come to the conclusion that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the
rider of the motorcycle. It ultimately concluded that the
claimants had failed to prove that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by
Murali Manohar Thakur, which has resulted in the death of
Vatsal Setu.
17. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the claim petition.
18. Sri. Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for the
claimants strenuously contended that the reasoning of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
Tribunal was seriously flawed. He submitted that when
Vatsal Setu was taken to the hospital in an unconscious
state and hospital records clearly indicated that he had
been brought to the hospital due to the injuries suffered
by him as a result of road traffic accident, the obligation to
inform the police or lodge a complaint stood waived since
it was the responsibility of the hospital. It was contended
that in light of this particular fact, the non-lodging of
complaint immediately or the delay in lodging the
complaint would really be of no consequence, especially
when there was clear and unimpeachable evidence that
due to the accident which had occurred, grievous injuries
had been sustained to Vatsal Setu, who ultimately
succumbed to the same.
19. As regards the pleas raised by the Insurer that Vatsal
Setu was riding the motorcycle, learned counsel for the
claimants sought to place reliance on the noting made in
the medical records pertaining to Vatsal Setu, which were
recorded at the earliest point in time i.e., immediately
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
after the accident, which clearly indicated that the
motorcycle was being driven by Murali Manohar Thakur
and that Vatsal Setu was a pillion rider. He submitted that
the hospital authorities had no reason to record an
incorrect set of facts. He also submitted that, admittedly,
Vatsal Setu was unconscious when he was brought to the
hospital and remained unconscious till his death and,
therefore, there was no probability of Vatsal Setu
misleading the authorities in order to create evidence.
20. Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted
that in order to prove that Murali Manohar Thakur was
riding the motorcycle, the medical records relating to
Murali Manohar Thakur had also been secured during the
course of trial and the medical records prepared at the
time of admission of Murali Manohar Thakur, which was
also immediately after the accident, categorically recorded
that the accident occurred due to the alleged skid and fall
from the motorcycle on 17.01.2012 at about 3.10 p.m. as
stated by Murali Manohar Thakur himself. He submitted
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
that the hospital record clearly recorded that Murali
Manohar Thakur had himself stated that he was riding the
motorcycle and, when he tried to take a turn, he had lost
control of the vehicle and fell down due to skid. He
submitted that in light of this statement recorded by the
hospital authorities, the assertion of the Insurer would
have to be disregarded.
21. Learned counsel for the claimants sought to place
reliance on an investigation conducted by the Insurer of
the motorcycle in relation to a claim made by Murali
Manohar Thakur for reimbursement of medical expenses
for the injuries suffered by him. He submitted that the
information that had been sought by the claimants were
not initially furnished by the Insurer and, as a
consequence, under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, when they filed an appeal, they had been
furnished Ex.P.47, which contained an email reply by
Murali Manohar Thakur to the investigator of the Insurance
Company. He pointed out that in this reply email of Murali
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
Manohar Thakur dated 31.08.2012 to the queries sent to
him by the Investigator, Murali Manohar Thakur had
categorically admitted that he was riding the motorcycle
and that Vatsal Setu was sitting behind him.
22. He submitted that this reply email by Murali Manohar
Thakur conclusively proved that Vatsal Setu was riding
pillion. He also highlighted the fact that since this reply
email of Murali Manohar Thakur was accepted and the
medical expenses incurred by Murali Manohar Thakur
towards injuries were reimbursed by another public sector-
Insurer, the Insurer in the present case could not disown
that fact. He submitted that when one public sector
insurance company had accepted that Murali Manohar
Thakur was riding the motorcycle and had reimbursed his
medical expenses, it was impermissible for the present
insurer to contend the contrary.
23. Lastly, learned counsel for the claimants contended
that the statements of Pushpak Jindal had also been
secured by the investigator and they were part of Ex.P.47,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
in which Pushpak Jindal, the owner of the motorcycle had
categorically admitted that Murali Manohar Thakur had
borrowed his motorcycle on the fateful day and while
going back from the office along with Vatsal Setu, the
accident had occurred. He submitted that if Murali
Manohar Thakur had borrowed the motorcycle, it was
obvious that it was Murali Manohar Thakur who was riding
the motorcycle.
24. Learned counsel also contended that since the
evidence on record clearly established that Vatsal Setu
was riding pillion, the Insurer would be liable to pay
compensation given the fact that the motorcycle was
issued with a comprehensive policy and this Court was
required to award compensation taking into consideration
the monthly income of Vatsal Setu, which was about
Rs.26,000/-.
25. Learned counsel for the Insurer, per contra,
contended that the delay in filing the appeal i.e., 675
days, by itself, created a serious doubt about the accident.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
The further fact that no complaint was lodged before the
police immediately after the accident and no autopsy was
also conducted immediately after the death of Vatsal Setu
would establish that the accident as narrated by the
claimants could not be accepted. He submitted that if the
accident was not established, as rightly held by the
Tribunal, the question of awarding compensation would
not arise.
26. Learned counsel sought to place reliance on the
communication dated 30.08.2012 issued by the BGS
Global Hospital-Ex.P6 to contend that the hospital itself
had asked for an explanation from the casualty medical
officers, duty doctors and the emergency department as to
why a MLC was not registered and why an autopsy was
not conducted. It was submitted that since it was recorded
that the accompanying attendant had stated that the
accident was due to a self-fall from the motorcycle, a MLC
was not registered and autopsy was also not advised, that
by itself would indicate that the accident was essentially a
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
self-fall and was not relatable to the riding of the
motorcycle by Murali Manohar Thakur. He also submitted
that the fact that no autopsy was conducted and yet, the
body was handed over, by itself, proved that no accident
occurred and, at any rate, the death was not due to the
accident as alleged by the claimants.
27. Learned counsel also sought to place reliance on the
B-report submitted by the police wherein the police had
observed that Vatsal Setu was, in fact, riding the
motorcycle. Thus, he submitted that there could be no
liability fastened on the Insurer.
28. The basic questions that would have to be
determined in this case are:
Whether an accident occurred on
17.01.2012; and
Whether Vatsal Setu was riding the
motorcycle or was only a pillion rider when the
accident occurred?
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
29. At the very outset, it is to be noticed here that as per
the objections filed by the Insurer, the occurrence of the
accident was not seriously disputed. The fact that the
Insurer contended that, at the time of the accident, it was
Vatsal Setu who was riding the motorcycle and not Murali
Manohar Thakur, by itself, proves the occurrence of the
accident.
30. The further fact that both Vatsal Setu and Murali
Manohar Thakur were taken to BGS Global hospital
immediately after the accident and that both their medical
records contained a clear noting that they were brought to
the hospital with a history of skid and fall from a
motorcycle, would also conclusively prove that a motor
vehicle accident did occur out of the use of motorcycle
owned by Pushpak Jindal.
31. As far as the argument of the Insurer that Vatsal
Setu was riding the motorcycle is concerned, the same will
have to be rejected.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
32. It is to be noticed here that Vatsal Setu was
admittedly unconscious immediately after the accident and
remained in coma till his death on 28.01.2017 and could
not obviously give any statement as to who was riding the
motorcycle.
33. The admission history recorded by BGS Global
hospital on 17.01.2012 at about 4.45 p.m. reads as
follows:
"Alleged H/o skid & fall from two wheeler on
17/1/2012 at around 3.30 p.m., near R.V.College,
Mysore road, Bangalore as stated by Rider of the two
wheeler Mr. Murali Manohar Thakur.
Patient was pillion rider, when the rider lost control
while taking turn & than vehicle had a skid."
34. This noting would leave no room for doubt that
Murali Manohar Thakur, who was described as the rider of
the motorcycle, had given the statement about the history
of skid and fall from the motorcycle and more importantly,
he had stated that Vatsal Setu was the pillion rider when
he lost control while taking a turn and the vehicle got skid.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
In the light of this clear recording by the doctors at the
time of admission, there can be no room for doubt about
Vatsal Setu being the pillion rider.
35. The doctor's noting dated 17.01.2012 also reads as
follows:
"- Alleged h/o self fall, riding pillion on a 2 wheeler, near RV
college in Mysore road,
- h/given by friend, driving bike
- bleeding from (L) ear, (R) ear and nose
- fatal injury."
36. Assuming that the note at the time of admission was
incorrect, the recording by the resident on 17.01.2012
would also show that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion.
37. In order to establish that Murali Manohar Thakur was
riding the motorcycle, the medical records of Murali
Manohar Thakur, who also suffered injuries and who was
also admitted to BGS Global hospital, were secured and
marked as exhibits. The noting marked as Ex.P30 made in
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
the medical record of Murali Manohar Thakur at the time of
admission to the hospital reads as follows:
"Alleged H/o skid and fall from a two wheeler on
17/01/2012 at around 3.10 p.m. near
R.V.College, Mysore road, Bangalore as stated by
patient himself.
Patient was riding a two wheeler tried to take a
turn, lost control of the vehicle and fell down due
to skid."
38. As could be seen from the above, there is a clear
recording of the fact that Murali Manohar Thakur himself
stated that he was riding the motorcycle, which he
borrowed from his friend Pushpak Jindal and while taking a
turn, he lost control of the vehicle and fell from the
motorcycle.
39. If the medical records of Vatsal Setu and Murali
Manohar Thakur are considered together, there can be no
room for any doubt that Murali Manohar Thakur had
clearly and categorically admitted that he was, in fact,
riding the motorcycle.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
40. The evidence on record also indicates that Murali
Manohar Thakur did make a claim for reimbursement of
his medical expenses with Oriental Insurance Company.
The Oriental Insurance Company had initially refused to
provide information to the claimant in this regard, which
resulted in filing of an appeal by them under the Right to
Information Act. In that appeal, the Oriental Insurance
Company did furnish the statement given by Murali
Manohar Thakur, the owner of the motorcycle-Pushpak
Jindal, and one Nishanth Gourav, to its investigator. The
reply of Murali Manohar Thakur was by means of an email
reply regarding the specific question of the investigator as
to the reason of being at the place of the accident and the
reason for occurrence of the accident, which reads as
follows:
"2. The reason for being at the place of accident
along with Vatsal Setu.
I and Vatsal work at the same place. On that day
we decided to go to my place which is in
kenchanhalli to eat at my place. And on my way to
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
home on bike this accident happened. I was
driving the bike and he was sitting behind me.
3. The cause and circumstances of occurrence of
the accident.
I was driving the bike and he was sitting behind
me. The speed of bike is around 50-55 KMPH. Since
to reach my home I have to take a U turn so
around half a KM before the U turn I was thinking
to going from last lane of the road to first lane but
before that I lost control of the bike and it got off
road on the kaccha road I applied the brake but the
bike skided and we skided along with the bike afte
dat few people gathered around and then I just
remember saying to them that please take us to
hospital as I was not even able to sit due to pain
after that I was in semi conscious state."
41. As could be seen from said reply email of Murali
Manohar Thakur, he once again admitted that he was
riding the motorcycle and Vatsal Setu was riding pillion.
Furthermore, Pushpak Jindal, the owner of the motorcycle
had also given a statement, in which he had stated as
follows:
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
"I the undersign employee of Mphasis an
H.P.Company give my statement that on dated 17th
Jan, 2012 my colleague Murali Thakur had borrowed
my motor cycle No:KA01EV8168 (Bajaj Avenger) in
the evening hours (3.30 pm) while going back from
the office along with Vatsal setu."
42. This would also indicate that it was Murali Manohar
Thakur who had borrowed the motorcycle and not Vatsal
Setu.
43. If in fact Vatsal Setu was riding the motorcycle in all
probability Vatsal Setu would have borrowed the
motorcycle. The fact that Murali Manohar Thakur had
borrowed the motorcycle gives rise to the drawing of an
inference that he was riding the motorcycle. It is therefore
clear that the evidence on record clearly established that it
was Murali Manohar Thakur who was riding the
motorcycle.
44. As for the reasoning of the Tribunal that no
compliant was lodged, no autopsy was conducted and
there was discrepancy in the communication of BGS Global
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
hospital with reference to non-registering of the MLC case,
it is to be noticed here that the hospital records leave no
room for doubt that both Vatsal Setu and Murali Manohar
Thakur were brought to the hospital with the clear history
of having a fall from a motorcycle. In other words, the
injuries suffered by them were admittedly informed to the
hospital as the result of a motor vehicle accident. It is
therefore obvious that it was incumbent upon the hospital
to have informed the authorities and if they had not
informed the authorities for whatever reason, the
claimants cannot be blamed. At any rate, non-registering
of a MLC or non-lodging of a complaint would not take
away the fact that an accident had occurred due to the use
of the motorcycle and there were injuries suffered by the
pillion rider which ultimately resulted in his death.
45. It may also be borne in mind that Vatsal Setu was in
Bengaluru at the time of accident and his parents i.e., the
claimants were residents of Jharkhand, and that the
occurrence of the accident resulting in their son being in a
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
coma would have distressed them immeasurably and his
subsequent death would have caused them further
trauma. In this state of mind, if they had taken the body
for cremation to their native place without lodging a
complaint, the same would have to be taken into
consideration and the non-lodging of a complaint would
have to be ignored as having really being of no
consequence for the purposes of deciding a claim under
the Motor Vehicles Act.
46. The argument of the Insurer that the B-report
indicated that the motorcycle was driven by Vatsal Setu
cannot also be accepted. This is because, a reading of B-
report would indicate that the police secured information
that Vatsal Setu was riding the motorcycle, but the details
of the person who gave them said information is not
forthcoming. It is also to be noticed that the investigation
commenced only after the complaint was lodged by the
claimants on 28.11.2013 and the possibility of them
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
securing statements from eye witnesses after such a long
passage of time would be remote.
47. It may be relevant to state here that the police have
not been considered the hospital records during the course
of their investigation, though they have noticed that both
Vatsal Setu and Murali Manohar Thakur were admitted in
the hospital. In fact, they have also stated in the B-report
that there were no eye witnesses secured during the
course of investigation.
48. In my view, in light of the glaring evidence that
Murali Manohar Thakur was riding the motorcycle and
Vatsal Setu was the pillion rider, coupled with the further
statement given by Murali Manohar Thakur to the
investigator of another public sector insurance company, it
will have to be held that Murali Manohar Thakur was the
rider and that Vatsal Setu was riding pillion. As a
consequence, since the vehicle in question was covered
with a comprehensive policy, the liability of the Insurer to
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
pay compensation in respect of death of a pillion rider-
Vatsal Setu cannot be denied.
49. As far as compensation is concerned, the evidence
on record indicates that the claimant was aged 23 years
and was drawing a salary of Rs.26,000/- per month as a
trainee software engineer in a company, as on the date of
the accident. Accordingly, the multiplier of '18' has to be
adopted and future prospect of 40% has also to be added
to the income of the deceased. Since he was a bachelor,
50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus,
the claimants would be entitled to Rs.39,31,200/-
(Rs.26,000/- X 12 + 40% - 50% X 18) towards loss of
dependency.
50. The claimants, being his parents and siblings, would
each be entitled to Rs.48,400/- towards 'loss of love and
affection', i.e., in all, Rs.1,93,600/-.
51. The claimants claim that they have incurred a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards charges for airlifting the body,
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
Rs.35,000/- for preserving the body in a coffin and a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi's has held that a sum of
Rs.30,000/- would have to be paid under conventional
heads (to be increased by 10% every 3 years).
52. However, the evidence on record indicates that the
body of Vatsal Setu embalmed and was transported from
Bengaluru to his native place i.e., Jharkhand by flight.
Thus, as against the normal sum of Rs.36,300/-, in my
view the claimants would be entitled to Rs.75,000/- in
the matter of transportation of the body and funeral
expenses (i.e., under the conventional heads).
53. The evidence on record indicates that claimants have
incurred Rs.2,30,000/- towards 'medical expenses' of
Vatsal Setu. The claimants would thus be entitled to
Rs.2,30,000/- towards medical expenses.
54. The claimants also had to come over to Bengaluru
and stay in Bengaluru during the course of Vatsal Sethu's
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
hospitalisation and it would therefore be proper to award a
sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of conveyance and
attendant charges.
55. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to
Rs.44,79,800/- as compensation along with interest at
6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
56. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
amount of compensation before this Court, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
57. On the deposit being made by the Insurance
Company, claimants 1 and 2 (being his parents) would be
entitled to the entire amount of compensation (excluding
the portion of Rs.96,800/- which the claimants 3 and 4
i.e., the siblings of Vatsal Sethu would be entitled) and out
of this sum, 75% of the amount shall be invested in a
fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank with permission to
claimants 1 and 2 to withdraw monthly/quarterly interest
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42708
accrued and remaining 25% shall be permitted to be
withdrawn by them.
58. The claimants 3 and 4 would each be entitled only to
the sum of Rs.48,400/- and they are permitted to
withdraw the same.
59. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
PKS
