Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road vs Nandakumar Madhukumar Aherrao on 10 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
M.F.A. CROB NO.19/2021 (MV-D)
IN
M.F.A.NO.4824/2020
C/W
M.F.A. NO.4824/2020 (MV-D)
M.F.A. NO.6611/2021 (MV-D)
IN M.F.A. CROB No.19/2021
IN M.F.A.NO.4824/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. NANDA KUMAR MADHUKAR AHERRAO
MADHUKAR AHERRO
Digitally signed by
AGE 61 YEARS.
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM 2. CHAYABAI NANDAKUMAR AHERRAO
Location: HIGH W/O NANDAKUMAR MADHUKAR AHERRAO
COURT OF AGE 51 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/AT KALWAN, ABHONA
ABHONA KALWAN NASHIK
MAHARASHTRA STATE-423502.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SENIOR DEPOT MANAGER
K S R T C CENTRAL DIVISION NO.4
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560027
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
REPRESENTED BY DEPOT MANAGER
K S R T C GUTTURU POST
HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
2. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
UNITY BUILDING TOWER BLOCK
4TH BLOCK, J C ROAD
BANGALORE-560002
REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, WALI COMPLEX
HARIHAR-577601.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R2)
---
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.4824/2020 IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE CPC, READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.845/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, J.M.F.C AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T,
HARIHARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.4824/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
UNITY BUILDING, TOWER BLOCK
4TH FLOOR, J C ROAD
BENGALURU
REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, VALI COMPLEX
HARIHAR
NOW REP BY ITS APPEALS HUB
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-III
2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS
M G ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
BENGALURU-560001
REP BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. NANDAKUMAR MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
S/O MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC-NIL.
2. SMT. CHAYABAI NANDAKUMAR AHERRAO
W/O NANDAKUMAR MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O. KALAVANA ABHONA
ABHONA KALAVANA
NASIK, MAHARASHTRA.
3. SENIOR DEPOT MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL DIVISION-4
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU
REP BY DEPOT MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C. GUTTUR POST
HARIHAR TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.845/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MACT, HARIHARA AWARDING TOTAL COMPENSATION OF
RS.62,97,747.50/-, WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. ON
RS.56,79,499.50/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN M.F.A. NO.6611/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL DIVISION, K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
BY ITS SENIOR DEPOT MANAGER
KSRTC, GUTTUR POST
HARIHAR TALUK-577601.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. NANDAKUMAR MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
S/O MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. CHAYABAI NANDAKUMAR AHERRAO
W/O NANDAKUMAR MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF KALAVAN ABHONA
ABHONA KALAWAN NASHIK
MAHARASTRA STATE-423502.
3. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
UNITY BUILDING
TOWER BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR
J C ROAD, BANGALORE -560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
BRANCH OFFICE
WAH COMPLEX, HARIHARA-577601.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.845/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., M.A.C.T., HARIHARA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.62,97,747.50/- WITH INTEREST 6 PERCENT P.A. ON RS.
56,79,499.50/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A. CROB CONNECTED WITH M.F.A.'s HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.11.2024, COMING ON FOR
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A.
PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
Challenging the judgment and award in MVC
No.845/2016 passed by the Sr. Civil Judge, JMFC and Addl.
MACT, Harihara, the Insurance Company has filed MFA
No.4824/2020, claimants have filed MFA.Crob No.19/2021 and
KSRTC has filed MFA No.6611/2021.
2. Appellant in MFA No.4824/2020 was respondent
No.2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were claimants and respondent
No.3 was respondent No.1 in MVC No.845/2016 before the
Tribunal. In MFA.Crob. No.19/2021, appellants were claimants
and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were respondent Nos.1 and 2
before the Tribunal. In MFA No.6611/2021, appellant was
respondent No.1, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were claimants and
respondent No.3 was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. For
the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to
henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
3. The legal heirs of deceased Sri.Nilesh Nandakumar
Aherrao filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking
compensation for his death in the road traffic accident that
occurred on 28.12.2015. It was contended that the deceased
was proceeding in KSRTC Airavata bus bearing registration
No.KA-57/F-897 from Bengaluru to Mumbai. When the said
bus reached near Nijalingappa Tomb, Siba, N.H.4 on the
Chitradurga-Davanagere road, the driver of the bus drove the
same at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and while
taking a turn, lost control over the bus resultantly bus toppled
down and several inmates of the bus were injured and 3
persons succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It was further
contended that Nilesh Nandakumar sustained head injury, was
immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Chitradurga, later
to SSMIS Hospital, Davanagere and then to Fortis hospital,
Bengaluru. He did not recover from the injuries and
succumbed to the same on 10.01.2016. It was also contended
that he was working as Software Engineer at KPIT Technologies
Ltd. and earning Rs.4,45,498/- p.a. Later, he submitted
resignation and obtained the letter of appointment from Infosys
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru with monthly basic salary of
Rs.66,668/-. Along with other benefits his total salary was
Rs.1,80,000/- p.m. Claimants have lost the emotional and
financial dependency due to untimely death of the deceased.
They sought for award of compensation of Rs.4,41,75,000/-
along with interest.
4. Respondent No.1 filed objections contending that
the driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly. At that time,
a lorry came behind the bus in high speed. To avoid the
accident, the driver of the bus took the bus to the left side
which resulted in toppling of the bus. It was further contended
that the bus involved in the accident was duly insured with
respondent No.2 and insurance was in force and hence the
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
Respondent No.2 filed objections denying the age, avocation
and income of the deceased. It was contended that the
Tribunal at Harihara lacks territorial jurisdiction and the
claimants in collusion with the police have filed claim petition
seeking exorbitant compensation. It was further contended
that the deceased had resigned from his employment, hence,
he had no earnings at the time of accident and the documents
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
produced with regard to future employment at Infosys Software
Co. Ltd., Bengaluru, are created for the purpose of claiming
compensation. They sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties.
Claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW-1, CWs-1 and 2 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P23 and Exs.C1 to C4. Respondent Nos.1
and 2 examined RW-1 and RW2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R15.
CWs-1 and 2 got marked Exs.CR1 to CR3. The Tribunal, on
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, assessed
the income of the deceased at Rs.4,43,098/- p.a., deducted
professional tax of Rs.2,400/-, deducted 50% of such income
towards his personal and living expenses, added 50% towards
loss of future prospects, applied '17' multiplier, and awarded
compensation of Rs.56,49,499.50 under the head of loss of
dependency. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.62,97,747.50 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till deposit. The Tribunal directed respondent No.2 to
pay compensation to the claimants after deducting
Rs.6,18,248/- and further granted liberty to respondent No.1-
Corporation to recover the said amount from respondent No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company, claimants and the
Corporation are in appeal.
6. Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed
grave error in awarding exorbitant compensation to the
claimants by assessing the age, avocation and income of the
deceased contrary to the evidence available on record. It is
submitted that the deceased was working as an Engineer in
KPIT Technologies Ltd. and drawing salary of Rs.35,186/- p.m.
as per Ex.R3 and after deducting the permissible deductions,
the Tribunal ought to have assessed his income at Rs.34,986/-
p.m., added 50% towards future prospects and awarded the
compensation.
7. It is further submitted that claimants have filed
cross-objection contending that the deceased got an
appointment at Infosys Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru with
salary of Rs.1,80,000/- p.m. and sought to re-assess the
income. The same cannot be considered as the deceased was
not working at Infosys Software Co. Ltd., it was only the letter
of appointment and as on the date of accident, he was not
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
drawing the said salary. In support of said submission, he
refers to the admission of CW-2 that the deceased has not
joined Infosys Software Co. Ltd.
8. It is also submitted that claimants are not entitled
to Rs.10,00,000/- already received towards the Group Personal
Accident Scheme from the employer, further more, claimants
are also not entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- already received towards
the death benefit from the employer and the Tribunal failed to
appreciate these aspects which has resulted in passing of
perverse order. It is further contended that the application
filed by the claimants for production of additional documents is
belated and that the claim petition was filed in the year 2016.
The appeals and cross-objection were filed in the years 2020
and 2021. However, the application for production of
document was filed in the year 2023 and those documents
were very much available with the claimants. Hence, he seeks
to reject I.A.No.1/2023 for production of additional evidence.
It is also contended that the Tribunal has also committed error
in reserving liberty to the Corporation to recover Rs.6,18,248/-
from the Insurance Company. The said finding is contrary to
the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the appeal
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
filed by the Corporation itself is not maintainable under Section
173 of the Act, as they have not filed any claim petition under
Section 166 of the Act. In support of his contentions, he placed
reliance on the following decisions:
i. Mrs.Helen C Rebello and others Vs. Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corpn. and another1
ii. Krishna Vs. Tek Chand2
iii. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram
Jadhav3
iv. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Shashi Sharma and others4
v. Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another5
9. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the
Corporation submits that the Corporation has paid the medical
expenses of the deceased to the tune of Rs.6,18,248/- as the
claimants were not in a position to pay the said amount and get
the dead body released from the hospital. The amount paid by
the Corporation forms part of the award of the Tribunal and the
Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay
the said amount to the Corporation directly instead of reserving
AIR 1998 SC 3191
Spl. Leave Petition (C) No.5044/2019 dt.05.02.24
First Appeal No.573/2013 dt. 19.12.2013
(2016) 9 SCC 627
(2009) 6 SCC 121
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
liberty to claim the said amount from the Insurance Company.
She seeks to issue direction to the Insurance Company to remit
the said amount to the Corporation and to the said extent only
the appeal is filed by the Corporation.
10. Sri.Mahesh R.Uppin, learned counsel for the
claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error
in considering the salary of the deceased as per Ex.R3 at
Rs.4,45,498/- p.a. The Tribunal ought to have considered the
salary at Rs.1,80,000/- p.m. as the deceased was about to join
Infosys Software Co. Ltd. w.e.f 10.01.2016. In support of his
contentions, he refers to the evidence of PW-1-father of the
deceased, Exs.P21, P22 and evidence of CW-2. He seeks
dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and to
allow claimants' cross-objection and interim application. In
support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following
judgments:
i. Basanti Devi Vs. Divisional Manager, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.6
ii. Gopayya and others Vs. Anand and another7
ii. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali and
others8
AIR Online 2021 SC 1222
MFA No.202098/17 c/w MFA No.202019/17 dt. 21.08.18
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
iii. K.R.Madhusudhan and others Vs. Administrative
Officer and another9
iv. Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and
others10
v. Sebastiani Lakra and others Vs. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. and another11
11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and
examining the materials on record, the points that arise for
determination are:
i. Whether the impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal calls for any interference in the appeal filed
by the Insurance Company?
ii. Whether I.A.No.1/2023 in MFA No.4824/2020
deserves to be allowed?
ANALYSIS
Reg. Point Nos.1 and 2:
12. The undisputed facts are that when claimants' son
Nilesh Nandakumar Aherrao was proceeding in KSRTC Airavata
bus bearing registration No.KA-57/F-897 from Bengaluru to
Mumbai, the same met with an accident near Chitradurga on
NH-4, which resulted in he sustaining grievous injuries and
(2012) 12 SCC 198
(2011) 4 SCC 689
(2013) 7 SCC 476
(2019) 17 SCC 465
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
later succumbing to the same. The jurisdictional police filed
charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal,
considering the evidence available on record has recorded the
finding that the driver of the bus was negligent and respondent
No.2 being the insurer of the bus is liable to pay the
compensation. The said finding of the Tribunal has attained
finality. The dispute between the parties in the present
proceedings is only with regard to the quantum of
compensation.
13. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that
at the time of accident deceased was aged about 26 years and
just before the accident, he resigned from his employment of
KPIT Technologies Ltd., Pune with an intention to join his new
employment at Infosys Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru. Claimant
No.1 examined himself as PW-1. The oral evidence of PW-1 is
nothing but reiteration of averments made in the claim petition.
The evidence of PW-1 indicates that the deceased was highly
qualified Software Engineer working in KPIT Technologies Ltd.,
Pune and he had issued notice of resignation to the said
company in order to join Infosys Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru.
PW-1 deposed that Infosys Software Co. Ltd. had offered the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
post of Associate Consultant to the deceased on salary of
Rs.66,668/- p.m. with performance bonus upto 100%,
guaranteed performance bonus upto 50%, ex gratia 20%,
basket of allowances, national pension scheme and insurance
coverage. Thus, total income of the deceased would be
Rs.1,80,000/- p.m. The said witness has been cross-examined
at length. However, nothing has been elicited to impeach his
evidence with regard to the age, avocation and income of the
deceased.
14. In support of the claim petition, claimants have
produced the death certificate, degree certificate, recognition
certificate and achievement records as per Exs.P11 to P17.
Ex.P18 is the appointment letter issued by KPIT Technologies
Ltd. which indicates his salary as Rs.2,16,155/- p.a. with other
perks and benefits. Exs.P19 and P20 are the letter and ID card
of the deceased issued by KPIT Technologies Ltd. Ex.P21 is the
communication dated 27.11.2018 from Infosys Software Co.
Ltd., Bengaluru to Ms.Swetha Aherrao which indicates that the
deceased attended the interview of the said Company and
appointment offer dated 19.11.2015 was issued to him for the
post of Associate Consultant at their office at Pune which also
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
indicates his joining date as 29.02.2016. Ex.P22 is the
appointment letter issued by Infosys Software Co. Ltd. which
indicates the salary, performance bonus, guaranteed
performance bonus, ex-gratia basket of allowances, national
pension scheme and insurance coverage. The said
documentary evidence indicates that the gross salary offered
was Rs.66,668/- p.m., the maximum performance bonus of
Rs.6,667/- p.m., guaranteed performance bonus at 50%, ex-
gratia bonus at 20% of the sum of basic salary and dearness
allowance, basket of allowances which includes house rent
allowance, leave travel allowance, medical allowance, transport
allowance, children's education allowance which would be paid
as part of salary, national pension scheme, optional retirement
benefit, Insurance and the employee will be eligible for Group
Health Insurance scheme of different categories.
15. Ex.P22 corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and CW-
2. Claimants have examined Senior Associate Head (HR) of
Infosys as CW-2. He deposed that Ex.P22 is the letter issued
by Infosys Software Co. Ltd. to the deceased and it has offered
the post of Associate Consultant in their Company directing him
to report to duty on 29.02.2016. The said witness has been
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
cross-examined. In the cross-examination, CW-2 admitted that
deceased had accepted the offer letter as per Ex.P21 and he
was not the employee of Infosys Software Co. Ltd. in the
month of December 2015 or in the month of January 2016.
The oral evidence of PW-1, CW-2 and documentary evidence at
Exs.P21 and P22 indicate that the deceased had accepted the
employment of Infosys Software Co. Ltd. and was about to join
the said Company. The evidence on record also indicates that
the deceased had sent notice of resignation to his earlier
employer i.e. KPIT Technologies Ltd., Pune with an intention to
join Infosys Software Co. Ltd. and at the time of accident he
was in notice period. It is admitted fact that the deceased was
gainfully employed and drawing handsome salary from KPIT
Technologies Ltd., Pune and he had resigned from the said job
with an intention to join Infosys Software Co. Ltd. His
employment in Infosys Software Co. Ltd. was secured and
already right of employment in Infosys Software Co. Ltd. was
accrued to the deceased at the time of his death in the road
traffic accident that occurred on 28.12.2015. The evidence on
record clearly indicates that the deceased had a job offer in his
hand with salary of Rs.66,668/- p.m. with all perks as per
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
Ex.P22. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal
has committed fell in error in assessing the income of the
deceased as per the salary paid by KPIT Technologies Ltd.,
Pune.
16. Taking note of the oral evidence of CW-2 and
Exs.P21 and P22, we re-assess the income of the deceased at
Rs.66,668/- p.m. So far as entitlement of performance bonus,
guaranteed performance bonus, ex-gratia bonus, basket of
allowances, national pension scheme and insurance, the same
cannot be considered as salary for the purpose of computation
of compensation. Admittedly, the deceased did not join the
employment at Infosys Software Co. Ltd. at the time of
accident. The interest of justice would be met if we consider
his salary as per Ex.P22 at Rs.66,668/- p.m. The co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in MFA No.202098/2017 and connected
matters disposed of on 21.08.2018 in similar circumstances at
paragraph 6 considered the offer letter issued to the deceased
and assessed the income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment of Basanti Devi referred to supra, has considered
the income of the deceased who was a Bachelor of Engineering
in Computer Technology notionally at Rs.20,000/- p.m. In the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
instant case, claimants have produced legally acceptable
evidence with regard to the status of earning of the deceased
at relevant time and the offer letter of Infosys Software Co.
Ltd. and adduced oral evidence of the employer as CW-2.
Hence, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.66,668/-
p.m. Claimants have filed I.A.No.1/2023 for production of
additional evidence. The additional evidence are the copies of
e-mails received from Infosys Software Co. Ltd. The
documents now produced have no much bearing in view of
Exs.P21 and P22 and oral evidence of CW-2. Hence,
I.A.No.1/2023 is liable to be rejected.
17. The contention of the Insurance Company that
claimants are not entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-
received towards the Group Personal Accident Scheme and
death benefit from the employer, respectively, the said
contention requires to be rejected in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Sebastiani
Lakra's case, referred to supra. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment held that there cannot be any
deduction if the deceased or his legal heirs receive any
benefits, amount, compensation towards insurance scheme,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
pensionary benefits, gratuity, grant of employment to the kin of
deceased, death benefits, returns from the investment like
bank deposits, shares and debentures. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court further held that the liability of the insurer is the
contractual liability and they cannot seek deduction of amount
from their liability. In view of the settled position of law
referred to supra, the contention of the insurer with regard to
deduction of compensation received under Group Insurance
Scheme and the death benefit from the employer by the legal
heirs of the deceased has no merit and is accordingly rejected.
18. The judgment in the case of Krishna referred to
supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of the
case on hand. In the said case, there were specific statutory
rules with regard to payment of benefits to the legal heirs of
the deceased by way of compassionate assistance owing to
sudden death of employee in harness. The judgment in the
case of Mrs.Helen C.Rebello, referred to supra was followed
in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram Jadav
and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashi
Sharma and Others. But they were rendered prior to the
judgment in Sebastiani Lakra referred to supra. The
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram Jadav referred to
supra has been considered the decision of Helen C.Rebello
referred to supra. However, the decision rendered by the
larger Bench in the case of Sebastiani Lakra referred to supra
was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram Jadav
referred to supra. In view of the later larger bench judgment in
the case of Sebastiani Lakra referred to supra, there cannot
be any deductions from the entitlement of compensation
amount by the legal heirs of the deceased on the ground that
the employer has paid some compensation on the death of its
employee.
19. Another contention of the Insurance Company that
the appeal filed by the Corporation is not maintainable as they
have not filed any claim petition seeking compensation under
Section 166 of the Act requires to be rejected for the reason
that Section 173 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved
by an award of the Claims Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the
High Court. The language employed in Section 173 of the Act
is very clear and unambiguous. Hence, any person aggrieved
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
by the award of the Tribunal can maintain an appeal. The claim
of KSRTC to refund Rs.6,18,248/- paid by it to the claimants
towards the medical expenses is admitted by the claimants. In
the instant case, admittedly the liability is on respondent No.2-
Insurance Company. Hence, respondent No.2-Insurance
Company is liable to make good the amount of Rs.6,18,248/- to
KSRTC.
20. Having re-assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.66,668/- p.m., compensation under the head of loss of
dependency requires to be re-assessed after deducting
professional tax and income tax from the aforesaid amount.
Having assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,00,016/-
p.a., the appropriate deduction of income tax would be
Rs.85,000/- as per the Finance Act, 2016 and the deduction
towards professional tax would be Rs.2,400/- p.a. After
deducting the income tax and professional tax, the net income
would be Rs.7,12,616/- (8,00,016 - 85,000 - 2,400).
21. Claimants are entitled to addition of 50% of the
assessed income towards the loss of future prospects of the
deceased. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was a
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
bachelor. The appropriate deduction would be 50% of the
assessed income towards his personal and living expenses and
the appropriate multiplier would be 17. Hence, the
compensation towards loss of dependency is reassessed as
under:
Rs.7,12,616 + 50% (3,56,308) = Rs.10,68,924 - 50%
(5,34,462) = 5,34,462 x 17 = Rs.90,85,854/-
22. Claimants are the parents of the deceased, they are
entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- each with 10%
escalation. Similarly, they are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead
body and funeral expenses with 10% escalation as per the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Others12 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram 13. Hence, claimants are entitled to compensation
as under:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 90,85,854/-
2. Loss of consortium 88,000/-
2017 (16) SCC 680
2018 (18) SCC 130
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
3. Loss of estate 16,500/-
4. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
and transportation
of dead body
Total 92,06,854/-
Awarded by Tribunal 56,79,499.50
Enhanced compensation 35,27,354.50
The compensation amount carries interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
23. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the
following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.4824/2020 and I.A.No.1/2023 in MFA
No.4824/2020 are dismissed.
ii. MFA.Crob.No.19/2021 is allowed-in-part.
iii. Claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.35,27,354.50 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization.
iv. MFA No.6611/2021 is allowed-in-part. Out of the
compensation amount, KSRTC is entitled to Rs.6,18,248/-.
v. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the entire
compensation amount of Rs.92,06,854/- before the Tribunal
within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
vi. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release
Rs.6,18,248/- to KSRTC and in balance amount, release 50% of
the share of the claimants digitally and balance 50% shall be
invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank
of the choice of the claimants for a period of three years.
vii. Registry shall refund the amount in deposit to
KSRTC in MFA No.6611/2021.
viii. Transmit the Trial Court records and amount in
deposit, if any to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
