Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Pushpavathi K W/O Late Ramesh K on 4 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
MFA No. 100686 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100686 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.,
NEAR BELLADA SHOW ROOM,
NEAR BANNI GIDA,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PUSHPAVATHI K.,
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER W/O. LATE RAMESH K,
Location: HIGH AGE: 55 YEARS,
COURT OF OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
KARNATAKA
R/O: HOSAPETE,
TQ: HOSAPETE,
DIST-BALLARI-583201.
2. NAGABHUSHANA K.,
S/O LATE RAMESH K,
AGE 28 YEARS,
OCC-STUDENT,
R/O HOSAPETE,
TQ-HOSAPETE,
DIST-BALLARI-583201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
MFA No. 100686 of 2023
3. GURURAJ K.,
S/O RAMESH K.,
AGE 23 YEARS,
OCC-STUDENT
R/O HOSAPETE,
TQ-HOSAPETE
DIST-BALLARI-583201.
4. VISHWANATH SETTY,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA SETTY,
AGE 60 YEARS,
OCC-DRIVER
R/O MAIN BAZAR,
NEAR VADAKARAYA TEMPLE
HOSAPETE-583201.
5. JADIYAPPA MUDENURU,
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA MUDENUR,
AGE 44 YEARS, OCC-OWNER,
R/O BHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSAPETE,
DIST-BALLARI 583201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
(R4 & R5 - SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 07.07.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.689/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTARTE FIRST CLASS,- CUM-MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VII, HOSAPET, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.45,93,250/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
MFA No. 100686 of 2023
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
The insurance company is in appeal under Section 173(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Additional Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC - cum Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII,
Hospete (for short, 'the Tribunal') under the judgment and
award, dated 07.07.2020, passed in M.V.C. No.689/2017.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of this
appeal are that,
(a) The respondents/claimants, who are the wife and children of
the deceased viz., Sri. Ramesh K., filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation for the accidental death of Sri. Ramesh K.,
the husband of the claimant No.1, in a road traffic accident
that took place on 06.02.2017 involving Maruti Swift Desire
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
car bearing registration No.KA-35/M-6300. It was stated
that the deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of the
accident, and he was working as a Manager in BDCC Bank,
Hosapete getting salary of Rs.45,125/- per month. The
claimants claimed compensation of Rs.1,13,50,000/- along
with interest.
(b) The appellant-insurance company (respondent No.3 before
the Tribunal), on appearance, filed its written statement,
disputing the claim of the claimants and contending that the
driver of the offending car was not possessing a valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.
Further, it stated that the claim of the claimants was
exorbitant and without any basis.
(c) Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial was held. The
claimants examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
produced 14 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.14. The respondents examined R.W.1 and marked three
documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The Tribunal, considering the
evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
Rs.45,93,250/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,
on the following heads:
1) Loss of Dependency Rs. 44,63,250/-
2) Funeral expenses and Transportation Rs. 20,000/-
expenses
3) Loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/-
Rs.10,000/- each to P.1 to 3.
4) Consortium to petitioner No.1 Rs. 50,000/-
5) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- each to P.1 to 3. Rs. 30,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 45,93,250/-
While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.45,125/- per
month and after deducting income tax, the Tribunal has
assessed the annual income at Rs.5,41,000/-. The Tribunal
considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, adopted
multiplier '11' and deducted 1/4th of the assessed income
towards personal expenses of the deceased. Aggrieved by
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
insurer is in appeal.
3. Heard Sri. Nagaraj C.Kolloori, learned counsel for the
appellant-insurance company and Sri. Y.Lakshmikant Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the
impugned judgment and award, and the appeal papers.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance
company submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error
in awarding the compensation adopting multiplier '11' as well as
deducting 1/4th of the assessed income towards personal
expenses of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted
that the claimants are the wife and two children of the
deceased, and as the dependants are three in numbers, in
terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the appropriate
deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be
1/3rd of the assessed income and not 1/4th as deducted by the
Tribunal. With regard to adopting appropriate multiplier,
learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the
age of the deceased on the basis of the Aadhaar Card (Ex.R2)
and contended that as per the Aadhaar Card, the deceased was
aged 55 years 7 months and 5 days as on the date of the
accident and since the deceased had completed 55 years as on
the date of the accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken the
multiplier '9'.
(2009)6 SCC 121
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company
also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding
interest on the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum. He
submits that, normally, bank interest rates on the fixed deposits
will have to be taken note of which is 6% per annum. Therefore,
he prays for reducing the rate of interest awarded on the
compensation from 9% to 6%. Thus, the learned counsel would
pray for modifying the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
6. Per contra, Sri. Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would support
the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Learned
counsel submitted that the deceased had not attained the age of
56 years as on the date of the accident and taking note of the
same, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier '11' which is
proper and correct. Learned counsel would not dispute that
deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to
be 1/3rd of the assessed income since the dependants are three
in numbers.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the appeal papers, the points that would arise for
consideration in this appeal are,
i) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal requires interference?
ii) Whether the interest payable on the
compensation awarded by Tribunal at the rate of
9% per annum requires interference?
8. Our answers to the above points are in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
9. The occurrence of the accident that took place on
06.02.2017 involving Maruti Swift Desire car bearing registration
No.KA-35/M-6300, and the resultant death of Sri. K.Ramesh, is
not in dispute in this appeal.
10. The insurer is in appeal questioning the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on two grounds, firstly,
the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th of the assessed income
towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd; and
secondly, the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier '11' instead of
'9'.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
11. The first contention of the appellant-insurance
company that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd and not
1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased requires to be
accepted. There are three dependants on the deceased i.e, the
wife and the two children and in terms of Sarla Verma's case
(supra), the proper deduction towards personal expenses of the
deceased, where the dependants are three in numbers, should
be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. Therefore, 1/3rd of the assessed income is
to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.
12. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased at
55 years and adopted multiplier '11' which according to us is
proper and correct. The Post-mortem Report at Ex.P.9 indicates
the age of the deceased as 54 years, whereas in the Aadhaar
Card, the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as
01.07.1961 and if the date of birth as indicated in Aadhaar Card
is considered, the age of the deceased as on the date of accident
would be 55 years 7 months and 5 days which would mean that
the deceased had not attained the age of 56 years. Therefore,
the Tribunal is justified in adopting multiplier '11'.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
13. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record,
has determined the income of the deceased at Rs.45,125/- per
month, and we do not find any reason to interfere with the
same. Out of the monthly income of Rs.45,125/- an amount of
Rs.200/- is required to be deducted towards professional tax,
and on deducting the same the monthly income works to
Rs.44,925/- and annual income works out to Rs.5,39,100/-. Out
of the said annual income, a sum of Rs.27,820/- is required to
be deducted towards income-tax as applicable for the relevant
Assessment Year/period. Thus, the annual 'loss of dependency'
works out to Rs.5,11,280/-.
14. The Tribunal has not granted compensation towards
'future prospects'. The deceased was aged 55 years as on the
date of the accident, and he was on permanent job as a Manager
in BDCC Bank, and was getting fixed/established salary.
Therefore, in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Others2, the claimants would be entitled to addition of
15% of the assessed income towards 'future prospects'.
AIR 2017 SC 5157
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
15. Having determined the annual loss of dependency at
Rs.5,11,280/-, on adding 15% of the assessed income towards
'future prospects', deducting 1/3rd of the assessed income
towards personal expenses of the deceased, and applying
multiplier '11', the claimants would be entitled to an amount of
Rs.43,11,802/- [Rs.5,11,280 + 15% = Rs.5,87,972 less 1/3rd
= Rs.3,91,982/- x 11 = Rs.43,11,802] towards total 'loss of
dependency'.
16. In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company
Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others3, under the conventional heads
the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/-
(including 10% enhancement) each on the heads of 'loss of
estate' and 'funeral expenses', and Rs.44,000/- (including 10%
enhancement) each to claimants No.1 to 3 on the head of 'loss of
spousal and parental consortium'.
17. The Tribunal has erred in awarding interest payable
on the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum. Having taken
the judicial note of the fact that bank interest rates on the fixed
2018 ACJ 2782
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
deposits is 7% per annum, we reduce the rate of interest
payable on the compensation from 9% to 7% per annum.
18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified
compensation on the following heads:
1) Loss of Dependency Rs. 43,11,802/-
2) Loss of spousal and filial consortium Rs. 1,32,000/-
(to claimants No.1 to 3)
3) Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
4) Funeral expenses and transportation Rs. 16,500/-
of dead body
TOTAL Rs. 44,76,802/-
19. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.44,76,802/- instead of Rs.45,93,250/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of Rs.44,76,802/-
shall carry with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the
date of claim petition till realization.
20. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment and award, dated 07.07.2020, passed
in MVC No.689/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC - cum Member, MACT-VII, Hospet is
modified to the extent of holding that the claimants
the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.44,76,802/- instead of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4198-DB
Rs.45,93,250/- awarded by the Tribunal. The
compensation of Rs.44,76,802/- shall carry with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date
of claim petition till realization.
c) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other
aspects remains unaltered.
d) The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation amount with accrued interest before
the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
e) Draw modified award accordingly.
Records of the Tribunal together with the amount in
deposit before this Court be transmitted to Tribunal forthwith
for disbursement.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMS
