Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20593

MFA.7582/2015
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

MFA NO.7582 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
UNNATI ARCADE,NO.5/111 & 6/112
1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST BLOCK
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
(1ST MAIN ROAD) RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010
NOW AT M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER LEGAL. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1 .
MR. K. M. JOSE
S/O MR. THOMAS MICHEL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
COMPANY EXCLUSIVE
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
KANJIRAKKATTU HOUSE
CHUNGATHARA P.O.
MALAPURAM DISTRICT
KERALA-679 334.

2 .
MRS. LOVELY JOSE
W/O MR K. M. JOSE
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
(MOTHER OF DECEASED MR TEJAS K JOSE)
SCHOOL TEACHER BY PROFESSION

MFA.7582/2015
2

PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
KANJIRAKKATTU HOUSE
CHUNGATHARA P.O.
MALAPURAM DISTRICT
KERALA-679 334.

3 .
KUM. SHREYA MARY JOSE
D/O MR K M JOSE
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
(SISTER OF DECEASED MR TEJAS K. JOSE)
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
KANJIRAKKATU HOUSE
CHUNGATHARA P.O.
MALAPURAM DISTRICT
KERALA-679 334.

SINCE MINOR REPRESENT BY HER FATHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE 1^STRESPONDENT
NAMED ABOVE

4 .
SRI HEMANNA
S/O SRI RAMCHANDRAPPA
AGED:MAJOR
(WATER TANKER VEHICLE OWNER)
RESIDING AT NO.25/1
YELLA REDDY COMPOUND
NELLURAHALLI
WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU-560 056.

5 .
SRI UMESHA
S/O SRI SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
(WATER TANKER DRIVER)
RESIDING AT MALALI VILLAGE
K. R. NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R3;
NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.3023/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI

MFA.7582/2015
3

ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MEMBER,
MACT
(SCCH-14),
BANGALORE
CITY,
AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.15,06,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
PAYMENT.

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

The assessment of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, including the determination of income, future prospects, multiplier, and interest rate.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - [The court assessed the compensation payable to the petitioners, the parents of the deceased, who was a student at the time of the accident, and awarded a total of Rs. 15,00,200/-. The court considered the loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, transportation expenses, and air fare.]
Fact of the Case:

The deceased, a 20-year-old student, was killed in a motor vehicle accident caused by a water tanker. The petitioners, the deceased's parents, filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal had erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum and modified the award to provide for interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- and adding 50% of future prospects, though the deceased was a student?2. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of '18' by taking the age of the deceased instead of taking the age of the younger parent?3. Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 1,20,000/- towards conveyance and in awarding 9% interest instead of 6%?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal was correct in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/- and adding 40% of future prospects, as per the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others.2. The court held that the Tribunal was correct in applying the multiplier of '18' by taking the age of the deceased, as the age of the deceased is the relevant factor for applying the multiplier.3. The court held that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 1,20,000/- towards conveyance and modified the award to provide for Rs. 45,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs. 60,000/- towards air fare.4. The court held that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum and modified the award to provide for interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part. The award passed by the Tribunal was confirmed except for the rate of interest. The petitioners were entitled to claim Rs. 15,06,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

07.12.2022

AND

COMING

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is by the Insurance Company

assailing the judgment and award dated 05.08.2015

passed

M.V.C.No.3023/2014

the

Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-14)

('the Tribunal' in short).

The

appellant/insurer

was

the

first

respondent, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the

petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were

respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Tribunal. For the

sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to

as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, Tejas

K.Jose, the deceased was the 1^st year B.Com.

student in Kristhu Jayanthi College, K.Narayanapura,

Bangalore, who is the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2

and brother of petitioner No.3. On 02.07.2014 at

8.40 p.m., while he was riding the motor cycle

bearing No.KA-01/Y-7292 at Whitefield, a Water

Tanker

bearing

No.KA-03/C-4932

caused

the

accident, as a result of which, he sustained multiple

injuries and was admittedly to Vydehi institute of

Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Whitefield,

Bangalore, where he was succumbed to death.

4. The petitioners being parents and sister of

the deceased have moved the Tribunal, seeking

compensation. The claim was opposed by the

respondents. The Tribunal awarded compensation of

Rs.15,06,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

6. The Insurance Company is before this court

on the grounds that the Tribunal has erred in taking

the income at Rs.8,000/-, adding 50% of future

prospects though the deceased was a student and in

applying the multiplier of '18' by taking the age of

the deceased instead of taking the age of younger

parent. The appellants have been self-employed,

there is no dependency and it was not considered by

the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also committed an

error in awarding Rs.1,20,000/- towards conveyance

and also in awarding 9% interest instead of 6%.

7. Heard Sri.Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel for

the insurer and Sri.V.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel

for the petitioners.

8. It has been argued by learned counsel for

the insurer relying upon an unreported judgment of

this court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and

Others -vs- Venkateshan V. and Others in

M.F.A.No.5896/2018 c/w 4444/2018 and 4659/2018

that the award of interest @ 9% per annum is

contrary to the settled law, there is no instances of

interest being paid at 9% for Fixed Deposits in the

Banks and it has to be reduced to 6%. It is further

contended that the petitioner was a student, his

income ought not to have been taken at Rs.8,000/-,

future prospects taken at 50% is incorrect and the

traveling expenses to the parents is awarded and it

has to be excluded.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners submitted that the parents were residents

of Kuwait at the time of accident, only because of

the accident, they were made to travel in a hurried

manner by spending huge money towards air fare.

The dead body was transported to Kerala in an

Ambulance by paying huge rent, the Tribunal has

rightly taken into consideration the expenses,

awarded traveling expenses. It is contended that

the accident was of the year 2014, though the

deceased was a student, in the Lok Adalat,

Rs.8,500/- is being taken as the income of a person

with no proof of income and even if the 40% of

future prospects is added, the compensation comes

to higher than what was awarded by the Tribunal

and therefore, the sought for enhancement of

compensation, though no cross-appeal was filed by

the petitioners.

10. I gave anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides and also perused

the materials available on record.

11. There is no dispute as to the accident,

cause of accident, death of the deceased, he was

aged 20 years and a student in the year 2014. The

material on record points out that the parents of the

deceased were working at Kuwait and they are from

Kerala State, because of the accident, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document