Karnataka High Court

Smt. S.L. Geetha vs Sri J. Ramesh on 8 January, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB
                                                                MFA No.3099/2014
                                                            C/w MFA No.2778/2012



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                           PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
                                              AND
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3099/2014 (MV-D)
                                              C/w
                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2778/2012 (MV-D)

                MFA No.3099/2014:

                BETWEEN:

                1.    SMT. S.L. GEETHA
                      W/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
                      AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

                2.    KUMARI M N DRAVYA
                      D/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
                      AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

Digitally             SINCE MINOR REP. BY
signed by K S         GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
RENUKAMBA             SMT S.L.GEETHA I.E., APPELLANT NO.1
Location:
High Court of         BOTH ARE R/AT NO.13, 3RD CROSS
Karnataka             1ST MAIN ROAD, RMV II STAGE
                      AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT
                      SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094

                3.    SMT LAKSHMAMMA
                      W/O MUNISWAMAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                      C/O M T SHIVANNA
                      R/AT DASARABEEDI
                      MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK
                      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120               ... APPELLANTS

                (BY SRI VIJAYENDRA D JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB
                                             MFA No.3099/2014
                                         C/w MFA No.2778/2012



AND:

1.   SRI J.RAMESH
     S/O JAYARANGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     R/AT NO.387, 2ND CROSS
     3RD MAIN ROAD, KAMALANAGARA
     BANGALORE - 560 079
     (DRIVER OF VEHICLE KA-02-D-4182)

2.   SRI Y RAGHUNATH
     S/O YALAGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     R/AT NO.18/33,
     JNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD
     NAGARABHAVI CIRCLE
     BANGALORE - 560 072
     (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-02-D-4182)

3.   THE RELIANCE GENERAL
     INSURANCE CO. LTD.
     NO.4/3/-1 & 3/2M
     11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
     JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061
     REP. BY IT'S DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
     (POLICY NO.1405782340001892
     VALID FROM 16.11.2008 TO 15.11.2009)     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT V/C/O DATED 02.01.2023;
    R1 SERVED)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2011 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.382/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


MFA No.2778/2012:

BETWEEN:

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
NO.4/3-1 & 3/2, 11TH MAIN ROAD
                             -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB
                                             MFA No.3099/2014
                                         C/w MFA No.2778/2012



III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 061
NOW AT NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS LEGAL ZONE MANAGER                  ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   S.L.GEETHA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
     W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY

2.   KUM. M.N. DRAVYA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
     D/O NARASIMHAMURTHY
     (SINCE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER/
     SMT. S.L. GEETHA/R1 HEREIN)

     BOTH ARE R/AT NO.13, 3RD CROSS
     I MAIN ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE
     AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT
     SANJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094

3.   LAKSHMAMMA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     W/O MUNISWAMAPPA
     C/O M.T. SHIVANNA
     R/AT DASARABEEDHI
     MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120

4.   J. RAMESH
     NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     S/O JAYARANGAIAH
     R/AT NO.387, 2ND CROSS
     3RD MAIN, KAMALANAGAR
     BANGALORE - 560 079

5.   Y. RAGHUNATH
     NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     S/O YALAGAIAH
     R/AT NO.18/33,
     JNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD
                             -4-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB
                                             MFA No.3099/2014
                                         C/w MFA No.2778/2012



    NAGARABHAVI CIRCLE
    BANGALORE - 560 072                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYENDRA D JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
    NOTICE TO R4 & R5 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 19.06.2015)

    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION   173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.382/2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.14,80,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

     THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
          AND
          HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated

04.10.2011 in M.V.C.No.382/2010 passed by II Additional

Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru.

2. Appellants in M.F.A.No.3099/2014 were claimant

Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said appeal were

respondent Nos.1 to 3 in M.V.C.No.382/2010 before the

Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB

referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the

Tribunal.

3. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and daughter and

claimant No.3 is mother of deceased Narasimha Murthy. On

01.09.2009 at 7.30 p.m. when Narasimha Murthy was riding

his motorcycle bearing Registration No.DL-35-SW-7078 near

Jyothipalya within the limits of Magadi Police Station, driver of

Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-02-D-4182 hit

Narasimha Murthy. Narasimha Murthy succumbed to the

injuries at the spot. At the time of the accident, respondent

No.1 was the driver, respondent No.2 was the registered owner

and respondent No.3 was the insurer of Tempo Traveller

vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-4182. Regarding the accident, on

the basis of the complaint filed by one M.S.Nijaguna Shivayogi,

Magadi police on investigation filed charge sheet against

respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections

279 and 304A of IPC.

4. Claimants filed M.V.C.No.382/2010 against the

respondents contending that the accident and death of

Narasimha Murthy occurred due to actionable negligence on the

part of respondent No.1 in driving Tempo Traveller vehicle

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB

bearing No. KA-02-D-4182. They further contended that they

were all depending on the income of the deceased, he was

earning Rs.11,500/- per month from his employment as

Superintendent of B.Ed College and he was an ex-service man.

They claimed compensation of Rs.1,24,07,560/- from the

respondents.

5. Respondent No.2 did not contest the petition.

Respondent Nos.1 and 3 contested the petition denying

occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of

the driver of Tempo Traveller, age, avocation, income of the

deceased and their liability to pay the compensation.

6. Before the Tribunal, to substantiate the case,

claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P29.

Respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal on

hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and award held

that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the

part of respondent No.1 in driving Tempo Traveller vehicle

bearing No.KA-02-D-4182. The Tribunal based on the evidence

of PW.3/the employer and other materials on record, held that

at the time of the accident, deceased was earning Rs.11,500/-

per month, deducted 1/3rd from his income for personal

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB

expenses, applied 15 multiplier and awarded compensation of

Rs.13,80,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal

in all awarded Rs.14,80,000/- on different heads as follows:

1 Loss of income/dependency Rs.13,80,000/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-

4 Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/- 5 Transportation & Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/-

                         Total                   14,30,000/-
          Wrongly shown due to arithmetical      14,80,000/-
          error

The Tribunal held that insurer/respondent No.3 is liable to

indemnify the damages with interest at 6% per annum.

7. Questioning the adequacy of compensation, the

claimants have preferred M.F.A.No.3099/2014. Insurer has

preferred M.F.A.No.2778/2012 contending that in assessing the

income of deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted

pension which was being received by claimant No.1.

8. Sri Vijayendra D.Joshi, learned Counsel for the

claimants reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that the

compensation awarded on the head of loss of dependency and

other conventional heads is on the lower side. He further

submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded future

prospects on the income of the deceased.

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB

9. Sri H.S.Lingaraj, learned Counsel for the Insurer

submits that PW.1 has clearly admitted that she has been

receiving family pension of Rs.5,400/- after death of her

husband and the Tribunal ought to have deducted Rs.5,400/- in

assessing the income of the deceased and loss of dependency.

10. On considering the submissions of both side and

examining the materials on record, the question that arises for

determination is "whether the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the impugned award is just one?"

Analysis

11. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident and

consequential death of Narasimha Murthy occurred on

01.09.2009 at 7.30 p.m. due to actionable negligence on the

part of respondent No.1 in driving Tempo Traveller bearing

No.KA-02-D-4182 is not under challenge. The relationship of

the claimants with the deceased is also not in dispute. It is also

not in dispute that Narasimha Murthy was earlier serving in

Indian Army on Short Service Commission basis and was

discharged from the said service. The evidence of PW.3 and

other materials on record show that on his discharge from

Indian Army, deceased was employed in D.K.Shivakumar B.Ed

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB

College. He was appointed as Superintendent in the said

college run by Sri Hebbur Charitable Trust ® and was working

as such in the said Institution between 13.08.2009 to

27.08.2009. Thereafter he was on leave. The evidence on

record further shows that in the said employment his salary

was fixed at Rs.11,500/-. After the death of Narasimha Murthy,

his wife received the arrears salary which was due to him.

12. At the time of the accident, deceased was aged 38

years 4 months 27 days. In the light of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v.

Pranay Sethi1 and having regard to the age of the deceased,

40% has to be superadded to his income by way of future

prospects. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, having

regard to the fact that there were three dependants, 1/3rd has

to be deducted for personal expenses and the applicable

multiplier is 15.

13. So far as the contention to deduct family pension of

Rs.5,400/- received by claimant No.1, the law is no more res

integra. Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

(2017) 16 SCC 680

(2009) 6 SCC 121

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB

Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Company Ltd.3 relying

on its earlier judgments held that family pensions and other

service benefits received by victim of the accident, shall not be

deducted while computing compensation as they accrue to the

victim and his family due to contract of the victim with his

employer. Therefore the contention that the Tribunal ought to

have deducted Rs.5,400/- in assessing monthly income

deserves no acceptance. Thus just compensation payable on

the head of loss of dependency is Rs.11,500/- + Rs.4,600/-

(40%)= Rs.16,100 x 2/3 = Rs.10,733/- x 12 x 15 =

Rs.19,31,940/-.

14. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra and Magma General

Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram4 each of the claimants

are entitled to compensation on the head of consortium at

Rs.40,000/- with escalation at 10%, which comes to Rs.44,000

x 3= Rs.1,32,000/-.

15. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, the claimants are

entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of

AIR 2018 SC 5034

(2018) 18 SCC 130

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB

estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation

with escalation at 10%. Therefore the just compensation

payable is as follows:

     Sl.              Particulars                  Compensation
     No.                                           awarded in Rs.
      1.    Loss of dependency                           19,31,940/-
      2.    Loss of consortium                            1,32,000/-
      3.    Loss of estate                                  16,500/-
      4.    Funeral         expenses        &               16,500/-
            transportation charges
            Total                                       20,96,940/-
            Less: awarded by the Tribunal               14,80,000/-
            Enhanced compensation                        6,16,940/-

16. Respondent No.3 being the Insurer is liable to pay

the compensation. The enhanced compensation shall carry

interest at 6% per annum. Therefore the appeal of the

claimants deserves to be allowed in part and the appeal of the

Insurer is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

ORDER

M.F.A.No.2778/2012 is hereby dismissed.

M.F.A.No.3099/2014 is partly allowed.

(a) Claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of

Rs.6,16,940/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of deposit.