Karnataka High Court

Kumari @ Vasanthakumari vs The Manager on 9 January, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                             -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:2055
                                                    MFA No. 6922 of 2023




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                        BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6922 OF 2023(MV-D)
                BETWEEN:

                1.    KUMARI @ VASANTHAKUMARI,
                      W/O SURESH H.S.,
                      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

                2.    SURESHA H.S.,
                      S/O NINGEGOWDA,
                      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

                3.    VARSHANGOWDA A.S. @ VARSHITH,
                      S/O SURESHA H.S.,
                      AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

                      ALL ARE R/O HOSAHALLY VILLAGE,
                      HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA
                      TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT,
                      NOW R/O BOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by             KASABA HOBLI,
KAVYA R               HASSAN TALUK-573 201.
Location:                                                  ...APPELLANTS
High Court of   (BY SRI GIRISH B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka       AND:

                1.    THE MANAGER,
                      CHOLA MANDALAM M.S.GENERAL
                      INSURANCE COMPANY,
                      DARE HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR,
                      NO.2, N.S.C.BUS ROAD,
                      CHENNAI-600 001.

                      REP. BY
                      CHOLA MANDALAM M.S.GENERAL,
                               -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:2055
                                     MFA No. 6922 of 2023




     INSURANCE COMPANY,
     NO.271, ASHRAYA LAKSHMI VILASA ROAD,
     DEVRARAJA MAHALLA,
     MYSORE-570 001.

2.   SHIVASWAMY,
     S/O RANGEGOWDA,
     SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

     2(A)   JAYANTHI,
            W/O LATE SHIVASWAMY,
            AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

     2(B)   MEGHANA,
            D/O LATE SHIVASWAMY,
            AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

     2(C)   CHANDANA,
            D/O LATE SHIVASWAMY,
            AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

            RESPONDENT NO.2(A) TO 2(C) ARE
            R/O KURADAHALLY VILLAGE,
            BAGUR POST AND HOBLI,
            CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
            HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HALASHETTI JAGADISH SIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE
    FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
    VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2024, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT
    NOS.2(A) TO 2(C) ARE DISPENSED)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1881,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.391/2021 BY III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:2055
                                        MFA No. 6922 of 2023




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

the judgment and award dated 19.06.2023 passed in

MVC.No.391/2021 by the Court of III Additional District

Judge and MACT at Hassan (for short 'the tribunal'). This

appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of

compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The claimants are the legal representatives/

dependents of one Vasantha, who was a pillion rider along

with Sri Phaniraj H.S., who was the rider of the motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA.02-HV-6519, which met with an

accident leading to the death of the pillion rider-Vasantha.

Hence, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of

the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

NC: 2025:KHC:2055

3.1 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.13,66,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

and directed respondent-Insurance Company to deposit

the compensation amount within two months.

3.2 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this

Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants contends

that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding

meager compensation including the income and

consortium, which calls for interference at the hands of

this Court. The tribunal has failed to award future

prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16

Supreme Court Cases 680. On these grounds, he seeks

enhancement.

NC: 2025:KHC:2055

5. Per contra, Sri Halashetti Jagadish Sidramappa,

learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance

Company vehemently contends that the tribunal has

awarded just and reasonable compensation. In fact, the

income taken is on the higher side and no further

compensation is required to be enhanced in favour of the

claimants, as the tribunal has taken all aspects into

consideration while awarding just and reasonable

compensation. On these grounds he seeks dismissal of the

appeal.

5.1 It is also contended by the learned counsel for

the respondent-Insurance Company that, as per the

Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

vs. Pranay Sethi and others stated supra, the awarding

of 40% towards future prospects is limited to the persons,

who hold permanent jobs or self-employed, having actual

salaries or established incomes and it may not go beyond

that, and if so, it cannot be expanded to others that are

NC: 2025:KHC:2055

not established and pleaded by the claimants, either in the

claim petition or by the evidence or any materials before

the Court.

5.2 He vehemently contends that there is no material

placed before the Court by the claimants to establish the

fact that the deceased was holding a permanent job

having actual salary or self-employed having established

income. They have not produced any documentary

evidence to prove his employment or income or self-

employed status. Hence, the tribunal has rightly decided

the aspect of future prospects, which is sustainable in law

even before this Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the

appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for appellants-

claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance

Company, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of

accident, involvement of vehicle and death having

occurred due to the road traffic accident, are not in

dispute. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed

NC: 2025:KHC:2055

against the driver of the offending vehicle. The policy

being in force, the Insurance Company has fixed the

liability.

7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,

income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is

stated that the income taken by the tribunal is

Rs.12,000/- per month as notional income, no

documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show

the income. However, the notional income chart of the

Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of

Rs.14,500/- for the accident of the year 2020. Accordingly,

income is taken as Rs.14,500/-. The age of the deceased

was 21 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has

rightly applied the multiplier at '18', which does not call for

interference.

8. The claimants are admitted that the deceased is

unmarried and was a bachelor. Therefore, the tribunal has

rightly deducted 50% towards personal and living

expenses, which does not call for interference. 40% would

NC: 2025:KHC:2055

have to be at future prospects, in view of the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others stated

supra, wherein though the classification is made with

regard to permanent jobs or self-employment at para 33

of the said judgment, there is a clear distinction as to how

the self-employed have to be treated. It is necessary to

extract relevant portion of para 33 of the said judgment,

which reads as under:

"xxxxx It is canvassed that it may not be possible to introduce an element of standardisation as submitted by the claimants because there are many a category in which a person can be self-employed and it is extremely difficult to assimilate entire range of self-employed categories or professionals in one compartment. It is also asserted that in certain professions addition of future prospects to the income as a part of multiplicand would be totally an unacceptable concept. Examples are cited in respect of categories of professionals who are surgeons, sports persons, masons and carpenters, etc. It is also highlighted that the range of self-employed persons can include unskilled labourer to a skilled person and hence, they cannot be put in a holistic whole. That apart, it is propounded that experience of certain professionals brings in disparity in income and therefore, the view

NC: 2025:KHC:2055

expressed in Sarla Verma that has been concurred with Reshma Kumari should not be disturbed."

9. What is relevant to take into consideration here is

that there are several unskilled labourers in unorganised

sectors, who may not have necessary documentary proof

or evidentiary material to place on record or witnesses to

state common employment. Therefore, the aspect of self-

employment is taken into consideration for awarding

future prospects, which is reduced to 10% from that of the

permanent job. Therefore, considering the age of the

deceased being less than 40 years, 40% is required to be

taken towards future prospects in the present case. Under

the circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to the

compensation of Rs.21,92,400/- (Rs.14,500/- + 40% =

Rs.20,300/- - 50% = Rs.10,150/- x 12 x 18) towards loss

of dependency as against Rs.12,96,000/- awarded by the

tribunal.

10. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of

consortium and the same requires to be modified. As there

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2055

are three dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of

Rs.40,000/- per head as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in

(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore,

under the head loss of consortium, the claimants are

entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3) along with

10% escalation towards one block period, which would

be Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- + 10%).

11. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which

also do not call for interference. In all, the claimants would

be entitled to Rs.30,000/- under these heads. However,

10% escalation on the same to be awarded, which would

come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).

12. In view of the above, the claimants would be

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.23,57,400/- as

against Rs.13,66,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

- 11 -

                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:2055





                 Heads                             Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency                                 21,92,400-00
Loss of consortium                                 1,32,000-00
Loss of estate and funeral expenses                33,000-00
                 TOTAL                             23,57,400-00

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed;

ii) The judgment and award dated 19.06.2023 passed in MVC.No.391/2021 by the Court of III Additional District Judge and MACT at Hassan, is modified;

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.23,57,400/- as against Rs.13,66,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.;

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;