Karnataka High Court
Smt Priti Singh vs Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd on 29 May, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY, 2025 R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1567/2024 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.498/2024 (MV)
IN MFA No.1567/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PRITI SINGH,
W/O LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. BABY SHIVESH SINGH,
S/O LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HIS
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
I.E., APPELLANT No.1.
3. SRI ANJANI KUMAR SINGH,
S/O LATE RAMASHRAY SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.
4. SMT. SHAILKUMARI DEVI,
W/O ANJANI KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
No.9, 1ST FLOOR,
13TH A CROSS ROAD, 5TH SECTOR,
VENKATAPURA TEACHERS COLONY,
-2-
NEAR HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU 560034
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
R/AT BADASARI JAGIR,
BADASARI BALLIA,
BADASARI JAGEER,
UTTAR PRADESH 277207
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R. VENKATESHA NAIDU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
No.28, M. G. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
(POLICY No.140121823340010720
VALID FROM 26-04-2018 TO 25-04-2019)
REPT. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. SRI V. BALAKRISHNA,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S VEDA WATER SUPPLY,
No.47, WARD No.191,
NICE ROAD, BERETENA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BENGALURU 560100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2023
PASSED IN MVC No.1987/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-15, BENGALRU SCCH-15, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
BETWEEN:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
No.28, M. G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001,
REP BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. PRITI SINGH,
W/O LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2 . BABY SHIVESH SINGH,
S/O LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS 7 MONTHS
3 . SRI ANJANI KUMAR SINGH,
S/O LATE RAMASHRAY SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
4 . SMT. SHAILKUMARI DEVI,
W/O ANJANI KUMARI SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT No.9,
1ST FLOOR, 13TH A CROSS ROAD,
5TH SECTOR,
VENKATAPURA TEACHERS COLONY
NEAR HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560034.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
R/AT BADASARI JAGIR,
BADASARI BALLIA,
BADASARI JAGEER,
UTTAR PRADESH-277207.
SINCE RESPONDENT No.2 IS MINOR,
REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN,
I.E.,RESPONDENT No.1.
SMT. PRITI SINGH.
5 . SRI V.BALAKRISHNA,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S VEDA WATER SUPPLY,
No.47, WARD No.191, ICE ROAD,
BERETENA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BENGALURU-560100.
(EXPARTE).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESHA NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2023
PASSED IN MVC No.1987/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT-15, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-
15), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.81,89,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF DEPSOIT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.03.2025,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
These appeals by the claimants and the insurer are filed
being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.11.2023
in MVC No.1987/2019 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru City.
2. MFA No.1567/2024 is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation, while MFA No.498/2024 is filed
by the insurer disputing liability.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V. Act') seeking
compensation of Rs.3.00 crore for the death of Santhosh
Kumar Singh in a road traffic accident. It is averred in the claim
petition that on 29.01.2019, at about 7:30 a.m., Santhosh
Kumar Singh was riding his Honda Activa bearing registration
No.KA-01-JA-0188 on HCL Company Road near Gyan Space
Company, Phase-I, Electronic City, when the driver of a Water
Tanker bearing registration No.KA-51-AB-8523, coming from
East to West at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
without adhering to traffic rules, dashed against the Honda
Activa. Due to the impact, Santhosh Kumar Singh sustained
grievous injuries and, though he was shifted to Sparsh
Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the
hospital.
4. It is pleaded that the claimants spent a sum of Rs.2.00
lakh towards transportation of the dead body and funeral
expenses. It is stated that the deceased was working as a
Technical Lead at HCL Technologies Limited and was earning
Rs.1,37,350/- per month. It is further alleged that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the water
tanker by it's driver, and that respondent No.1, being the
insurer of the offending water tanker, is liable to pay the
compensation.
5. Upon service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent
and was consequently placed ex parte. Respondent No.1
appeared and filed objection statement, wherein the age,
avocation, and income of the deceased were denied.
Furthermore, respondent No.1 denied that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle and contended that the accident was caused by the
negligence of the deceased, who was riding his vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner, without a valid driving license and
without wearing a head guard.
6. The claimants examined three witnesses and got 33
documents marked. The respondents examined RW.1 and got
marked Ex.P.1. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal
held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the water tanker, and that the vehicle was covered
under the insurance policy. Accordingly, respondent No.1 was
found liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal noted
Rs.53,326/- as the monthly salary of the deceased, after
deducting applicable taxes. However, considered Rs.40,000/-
per month for the purpose of assessment of compensation. In
addition to compensation under other notional heads such as
consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral,
and transportation expenses, the Tribunal determined the total
compensation at Rs.81,89,000/- with simple interest at 6% per
annum. The Tribunal further directed respondent No.1, the
insurer, to deposit the awarded amount.
7. Sri. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the insurer,
submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
deceased. He contends that an FIR was registered against the
driver of the water tanker based on a complaint of a person,
who was not an eyewitness. It is further submitted that the
driver of the water tanker has been falsely implicated in order
to claim compensation. Counsel also submits that Ex.P.3, the
spot sketch, was prepared to support the case of the deceased.
There was no negligence on the part of the driver of water
tanker, and that any negligence contributed to by the driver of
the water tanker was minimal. In response to the appeal filed
by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, learned
counsel argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable.
8. Sri. R. Venkatesha Naidu, learned counsel appearing for
the claimants submits that the water tanker was moving in the
wrong direction, i.e., opposite to the vehicle of the deceased.
He contends that the accident was caused due to the rash and
negligent driving of the tanker, in violation of traffic rules. It is
further submitted that the deceased sustained grievous injuries
as a result of the negligent driving of the offending water
tanker and succumbed to those injuries on the way to the
hospital. Leaned counsel also submits that the deceased was
aged 35 years at the time of death and was earning a monthly
salary of Rs.1,37,350/-, which should be considered for
computing compensation, after deducting professional tax and
income tax.
9. It is further submitted that the deceased had secured
permanent employment after the completion of his
probationary period of 12 months, and as such, future
prospects should be awarded at 50%, treating his employment
as permanent. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal's
deduction of allowances paid while considering the monthly
income is incorrect.
10. It is further submitted that there are four claimants-
parents, wife, and son, and that all the claimants are entitled to
an award of compensation under the head 'loss of consortium.
Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding
only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium.
11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties, the point that arise for consideration are,
i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding
that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of water tanker bearing No.
KA 51 AB 8523?
ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper and requires
interference by Court?
- 10 -
ANALYSIS
Re. Point No.1
12. The occurrence of the accident involving the Activa Honda
and the water tanker is not in dispute, nor is the death of
Santhosh Kumar Singh due to the injuries sustained in the
accident. The insurer contends that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the
deceased. The claimant, PW.1, has filed a complaint, and an
FIR has been registered. According to Ex.P.1-FIR, the driver of
the water tanker was driving in the opposite direction and
collided with the Honda Activa.
13. The spot sketch, which is part of the record, shows that
the width of the road is 25 feet. The Honda Activa was moving
from West to East, and the water tanker was moving from East
to West. The two-wheeler was on the extreme left, while the
water tanker was positioned beyond the middle of the road,
heading towards the North. Had the tanker not violated traffic
rules, it should have been positioned towards the extreme
South, not the North side. Both vehicles had 12.5 feet for free
movement. The position of the water tanker was 21 feet from
South to North, clearly indicating that it was moving on the
wrong side of the road, opposite to the two-wheeler.
- 11 -
Additionally, charge sheet has been filed against the driver of
the water tanker. The insurer has failed to rebut the evidence
adduced by the claimants in the charge sheet, the spot sketch
etc. In light of these facts, the Tribunal was justified in holding
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
by the driver of the water tanker. As the policy of the
offending vehicle was active, the Tribunal rightly directed the
insurer to satisfy the award. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is
answered affirmatively.
Re. Point No.(ii)
14. The employment of the deceased with HCL Technologies
Limited, Bengaluru, is not in dispute. The claimants have
produced salary slips issued by HCL Technologies Limited to
substantiate the employment. PW.2 was examined to prove the
deceased's employment. According to the evidence of PW.2,
the deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.1,37,350/- per
month and was a permanent employee.
15. Salary slips for the months of November and December
2018, and January 2019 are together marked as Ex.P.12.
According to Ex.P.12, the deceased was drawing gross salary of
Rs.1,37,350/-, inclusive of allowances. The claimants contend
that, except for income tax and professional tax, no other
- 12 -
deductions should be made from the gross salary. On the other
hand, the insurer contends that various allowances are not part
of the salary and should be deducted while computing the loss
of dependency.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Fakirchand
Taneja and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and another, reported in 2023 ACJ 338, while
examining the deductions to be made from the gross salary,
held that, in accordance with the judgment in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, [(2017) 16 SCC
680], the income to be considered is the actual income less tax
paid. It was further held that the consideration of basic salary
alone, while ignoring allowances such as Conveyance
Allowance, House Rent Allowance, etc., is incorrect.
17. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under,
"59.3. While determining the income, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age
of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years,
the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be
read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
- 13 -
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
and 10% where the deceased was between the age of
50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component."
"59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
18. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra), established and sustainable income is to be
considered. The allowances, namely Car Allowance, Holiday
Allowance, Fuel and Vehicle Maintenance, Compensatory
Allowance, Engagement Performance Bonus, and Food Valet,
are paid in addition to the basic salary and HRA. Pay slips for
the months of November and December 2018, and January
2019, indicate that these allowances were paid consistently
every month, without variation. These allowances are in lieu of
employment and form part of the salary. The allowances are
part of the pay package agreed upon between the deceased
and the employer. In assessing just compensation, amounts
that were to be paid to the deceased by his employer, whether
as perks or under any other nomenclature, should be added to
his monthly income. Such monthly income forms the basis for
computing compensation.
- 14 -
19. It is relevant to refer the following judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court,
(i) In Sunil Sharma and Others vs. Bachitar Singh
and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 425, wherein it has been
held as under,
"(a) Computation of income
6. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira
Srivastava [(2008) 2 SCC 763 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 550
: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 744 : AIR 2008 SC 845] S.B.
Sinha, J. has observed that: (SCC p. 767, para 9)
"9. The term 'income' has different
connotations for different purposes. A court
of law, having regard to the change in
societal conditions must consider the
question not only having regard to pay-
packet the employee carries home at the end
of the month but also other perks which are
beneficial to the members of the entire
family. Loss caused to the family on a death
of a near and dear one can hardly be
compensated on monetary terms."
7. His Lordship also stated that if some facilities were
being provided whereby the entire family stood to
benefit, the same must be held to be relevant for the
purpose of computation of total income on the basis of
which the amount of compensation payable for the
death of the kith and kin of the applicants was required
to be determined. This Court held that: (Indira
Srivastava case [(2008) 2 SCC 763 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
550 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 744 : AIR 2008 SC 845] , SCC
p. 768, para 12)
"12. ... superannuation benefits,
contributions towards gratuity, insurance of
medical policy for self and family and
education scholarship were beneficial to the
members of the family."
- 15 -
8. This Court clarified that by opining that: (Indira
Srivastava case [(2008) 2 SCC 763 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
550 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 744 : AIR 2008 SC 845] , SCC
p. 771, para 17)
" 'just compensation' must be determined
having regard to the facts and circumstances of
each case. The basis for considering the entire
pay-packet is what the dependants have lost
[in view of] death of the deceased. It is in the
nature of compensation for future loss towards
the family income."
and that: (Indira Srivastava case [(2008) 2 SCC 763 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 550 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 744 : AIR
2008 SC 845] , SCC p. 772, para 19)
"19. The amounts, therefore, which were
required to be paid to the deceased by his
employer by way of perks, should be included
for computation of his monthly income as that
would have been added to his monthly income
by way of contribution to the family as
contradistinguished to the ones which were for
his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add
that from the said amount of income, the
statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must
be deducted."
11. Based on the aforementioned judgments, we are
of the view that deductions made by the Tribunal on
account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on
an incorrect basis and should have been taken into
consideration in calculation of the income of the
deceased. Further, deduction towards EPF and GIS
should also not have been made in calculating the
income of the deceased.
(ii) Triveni Kodkany vs. Air India Ltd., (2021) 19
SCC 214, wherein it has been held as under,
"9. Both the sides have prefaced their submissions by
relying on the principles which have been evolved by
the court in determining compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act, where an accident has resulted in death.
The table which we have reproduced in the earlier part
of the judgment would indicate that the total CTC per
- 16 -
annum, on account of the employment of the deceased,
to his employer was AED 4,82,395. This comprises of
the basic pay, house rent allowance, transport
allowance, telephone allowance, LTA, medical aid and
gratuity. The ion which has been made by the employer
in the salary of the deceased is, in our view, no reason
to make any deductions from the total CTC of AED
4,82,395. The consolidated amount is the amount
annually borne by the employer on account of the
employment of the deceased. Hence, we are unable to
accept the reasons which weighed with NCDRC in making
a deduction of AED 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly
and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the
submission of Air India that the transport allowance
should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into
diverse heads may be made by the employer for a
variety of reasons. However, in a claim for
compensation arising out of the death of the employee,
the income has to be assessed on the basis of the
entitlement of the employee. We, therefore, proceed for
the purpose of computation on the basis of the annual
income of AED 4,82,395."
"11. The material on record does not indicate that the
deceased was entitled to a specified quantum of ESOPs
as a matter of right. These would be linked to
performance. Apart from the letter of the employer, no
evidence was produced before NCDRC to indicate that
the ESOPs were payable at a certain rate or quantum
every year. These were incentives paid to the deceased.
Similarly, the other financial benefits which have been
adverted to in the above extract from the letter dated
21-3-2011, have not been demonstrated to be a matter
of right. The letter indicates that the deceased
was eligible for certain benefits on an annual basis. In
the absence of cogent evidence indicating that this was
a part of the salary package which was payable to the
deceased as an entitlement irrespective of performance,
we are not inclined to accept the submission that the
incentive benefits should be added back to the income
for the purposes of computation."
20. In view of the consistent payment of allowances from
month to month, it must be considered as established and
- 17 -
sustainable income. Merely bifurcating the earnings under
different heads does not alter the character of the income of
the deceased. What is essential to consider is the consistent
income of the deceased. Payments made under various heads
to the deceased remain part of his income. The allowances
cannot be considered speculative, as they were paid
consistently on month-to-month basis. Ex.P.10, the Offer-cum-
Appointment Letter, provides the salary structure. According to
the agreed structure between the employer and the deceased,
the deceased was entitled to monthly allowances under various
heads, in addition to the basic salary. While the allowances
may be separated from the basic salary, they nonetheless
remain part of the composite earnings of the
employee/deceased. The payment of allowances is not attached
with any other contingencies, to consider it as not permanent
or not accrued. The right to allowances has accrued to the
deceased under the pay package as agreed by the employer.
21. The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the
deceased was in the probationary period and that his entire
salary paid could not be considered. The Tribunal considered
the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/-, which has no legal
or logical basis. The Division Bench of this Court in United
- 18 -
India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anbu C and others, in MFA
No.8643/2015 (MV) held as under,
"... For the purpose of quantifying compensation under
the head 'loss of income', the tribunal has rightly added
50% of the monthly salary towards future prospects.
The same is vehemently objected by the learned
Counsel for the appellant contending that the deceased
was just aged about 25 years and died within one
month or so after joining the company; there was no
guarantee that the deceased would get permanent
employment inasmuch as he was still under the
probationary period. Such submission of the learned
Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is most
unfortunate that an young boy aged about 25 years has
lost his life in the accident within one month of joining
his duty. He cannot be blamed for his fate. In the first
month itself, he got Rs.21,000/- per month apart from
the performance bonus. He had to look after his
parents. Therefore, it cannot be said that his
probationary period would not have been declared, etc.
or the deceased would not have got any promotion in
life. Since the company in which the deceased was
working is stated to be a reputed travel and tourism
company which is having about 1,500 employees and as
the deceased was paid sumptuous salary in the first
month of probation period itself, the tribunal in our
considered opinion is justified in adding 50% of his
income towards future prospects. Thus the monthly
salary which is to be taken into consideration for the
purpose of quantifying compensation is Rs.31,500/-
(Rs.21,500/- + Rs.10,000/-). The same is the amount
arrived at by the tribunal."
22. Applying the observations made by the co-ordinate
Bench, what must be considered is the suitable income. There
is no reason for the Tribunal to assume that the deceased's
probationary period would not have been successfully
completed, and that the same salary paid would not have
remained stable or appreciated. What the Tribunal failed to
- 19 -
consider is that if the deceased was drawing a salary of
Rs.1,37,350/- during the probationary period, the skills and
expertise recognized by the employer should not have been
disregarded. PW.2 clearly deposed that the employment of
deceased was permanent. Considering the deceased was aged
35 years, the evidence of PW2 cannot be doubted.
23. Ex.P.12, the salary slips for the months of November and
December 2018, and January 2019, clearly demonstrate the
consistent payment of a salary of Rs.1,37,350/- per month.
Given the consistency of the payments across these three
months, it is reasonable to rely on Ex.P.12 for assessing the
income for the purpose of compensation. The total annual
income of the deceased is calculated as Rs.1,37,350/- x 12 =
Rs.16,48,200/-. Deductions towards professional tax amount to
Rs.2,400/-, and Rs.3,06,240/- is deducted for income tax,
based on the tax slabs applicable under the Finance Act, 2019,
which is the year of the accident. After these deductions, the
total annual income is Rs.13,39,560/-.
24. The Tribunal considered Ex.P.15, the SSLC Marks Card, to
determine the age of the deceased as 35 years. The claimants,
who are the parents, wife, and son of the deceased, were
financially dependent on him. In light of the judgment of the
- 20 -
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another (AIR 2009 SCC
3104), 1/4th of the income of the deceased is to be deducted
towards personal expenses. Considering that the deceased was
aged 35 years, the Tribunal rightly applied a multiplier of 16.
25. In view of Pranay Sethi (supra), considering that the
deceased was aged 35 years and was not in permanent
employment, 40% of the income is to be added towards future
prospects. Therefore, the compensation for loss of dependency
is calculated as follows:
Rs.13,39,560 - 1/4th (Rs.3,34,890) = Rs.10,04,670/-
Rs.10,04,670 + 40% (Rs.4,01,868) = Rs.14,06,538/-
Rs.14,06,538 x 16 = Rs.2,25,04,608/-.
26. The claimants are the parents, wife, and son of the
deceased. In view of Pranay Sethi and Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), each dependent claimant is
entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of consortium' in
the amount of Rs.40,000/-. Considering that the accident
occurred in 2019, a 10% increase is to be applied every three
years. Therefore, each of the claimants is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- + 20% [10%+10%] = Rs.48,000/- towards
parental, spousal, and filial consortium.
Rs.48,000x4 = 1,92,000/-.
- 21 -
27. Similarly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- plus
20% [10%+10%] towards loss of estate and funeral expenses
which comes to Rs.18,000/- each. Accordingly, the claimants
are entitled to the following compensation,
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency Rs.2,25,04,608/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,92,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-
Total Rs.2,27,32,608/-
28. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.2,27,32,608/-. Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.81,89,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,27,32,608 - Rs.81,89,000 =
1,45,43,608/-.
29. In light of the above, the following,
(i) MFA No.1567/2024 by the claimants is allowed-in-
part and MFA No.498/2024 by the insurer is
dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 02.11.2023 passed
in MVC No.1987/2019 is modified as under,
(a) The claimants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,45,43,608/- with
- 22 -
simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till it's realisation.
(iii) The respondent-insurer shall deposit the enhanced
compensation before Tribunal within four weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iv) The order of the Tribunal with regard to
apportionment and investment is maintained.
v) Registry shall transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
(K. S. MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
mv
