Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6671 OF 2012 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4790 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5509 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6673 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6674 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6877 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6876 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6672 OF 2012 Digitally signed by IN MFA No.6671/2012 MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALOORU - 560 027 NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA. BENGALURU - 560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. F. S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) -2- AND:
1. MANAGER BAJAJ ALIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE - 641 034 TAMIL NADU.
2. SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
3. KUM. AMULYA D/O. N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.33, 13 CROSS, AGRAHARADASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 079.
4. SRI MALLESH S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A # C-11, PLANT QUARTERS KPCL, YALAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. T. N. GOPAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; R-3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.3.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6401 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT,
22ND ACMM, 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.85,000/- -3- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS ACTUAL DEPOSIT AND ETC., IN MFA NO.4790/2012 BETWEEN: BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.1/82 MANJAMMA COMPLEX METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU - 641 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT I CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD ADJACENT TO JAIN COLLEGE & BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE BENGALURU - 560 002 BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT ( CLAIMS) ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. R. ROOPA W/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
2. KUMARI AMOOLYA D/O. N.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.33 13TH B CROSS AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU -560 079. -4-
3. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; R-2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-1; SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6399 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII A.C.M.M. AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,39,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC., IN MFA NO.5509/2012 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
2. KUMARI AMULYA D/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS 2ND APPELLANT IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER i.e., 1ST APPELLANT, -5- BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.33 13TH B CROSS AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU -560 079. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. T. N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
2. MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE - 641 034. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.3.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6399 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, 22ND ACMM, 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC., -6- IN MFA NO.6673/2012 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K. H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU- 641 034.
2. SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. N. NAGARAJ. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
3. KUM AMULYA D/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS REPRESENTED BY R-2-MOTHER) BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.33, 13TH CROSS, AGRAHAR DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; R-3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-2) -7- THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.3.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6399 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, 22ND ACMM, 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,39,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS ACTUAL DEPOSIT AND ETC., IN MFA NO.6674/2012 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANAGER, BAJAJ ALIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE TAMILNADU- 641 034. -8-
2. SRI ANIL KUMAR N. S/O. G. A. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O #10, ANJANADRI NILAYA 2ND CROSS, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU BENGALURU - 560 073.
3. SMT. R. ROOPA
W/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NO. 33, 13 CROSS AGRAHARADASARAHALLI BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED 20/02/2015 NOTICE TO R-2 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT;
SRI. T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6402/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND ACMM & 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.16,900/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT AND ETC., IN MFA NO.6877/2012 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
2. KUMARI AMULYA D/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ, -9- AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER I.E. 1ST APPELLANT BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.33, 13TH B. CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
2. MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE - 641 034.
3. SRI. N. MALLESHA S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.C-11, D.G. QUARTERS, KPCL YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6401 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII - 10 - A.C.M.M. AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC., IN MFA No.6876/2012: BETWEEN:
SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33, 13TH B CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 027.
2. MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE - 641 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6400 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII - 11 - A.C.M.M. AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC., IN MFA NO.6672/2012 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX METTUPALYA ROAD, THUDIYALUR COIMBATORE TAMILNADU-641 034.
2. SMT. R. ROOPA
W/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO 3, 13TH B CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-79. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;) - 12 -
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6400 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND A.C.M.M. AND 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.64,000/- AND ETC. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) As these appeals are arising out of same accident, they are heard together and disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. MFA.No.4790/2012 is filed by the appellant -
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., and MFA.No.6673/2012 is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, "the KSRTC") on the grounds of negligence and quantum of compensation, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor - 13 - Accident Claims Tribunal, XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MVC.No.6399/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas MFA.No.5509/2012 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6399/ 2009 dated 17.03.2012.
3. MFA.No.6671/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on the
ground of negligence and quantum of compensation, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6401/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas MFA.No.6877/2012 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6401/ 2009 dated 17.03.2012.
4. MFA.No.6672/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on the
grounds of negligence and quantum of compensation, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6400/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas - 14 - MFA.No.6876/2012 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6400/ 2009 dated 17.03.2012.
5. MFA.No.6674/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on the
ground of negligence being aggrieved by the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6402/2009 dated 17.03.2012.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the claim petitions before the Tribunal.
7. The brief facts of the case are as under:
On 20.02.2009 at about 4.15 p.m., one N.Nagaraj (hereinafter referred to as the deceased - MVC.No.6399/2009) was driving a TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-02-D-8483 and one Ankajamma (hereinafter referred to as deceased - MVC.No.6401/2009), claimant Nos.1 and 2 of - 15 - MVC.No.6399/2009 and Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as injured - MVC.No.6402/2009) were traveling as the passengers in the said Car. When the Car was proceeding on NH-48, Bengaluru - Hassan road, i.e., from Bengaluru to Lakshmipura near Belur, the driver of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-18-F-218 came from the opposite direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came to the extreme right and dashed to the Car, due to the said impact Nagaraj died on the spot, and Ankajamma, who was grievously injured, succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. Further, claimant No.1, Smt. R.Roopa and claimant No.2, Kum. Amulya of MVC.No.6399/2009 and Anil Kumar of MVC.No.6402/2009 sustained grievous injures and underwent treatment at A.C. Giri Hospital and NIMHANS. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation under various heads. - 16 -
8. Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the
appellant / Insurance Company vehemently contended that the accident occurred on 20.02.2009 and the vehicles involved in the accident are TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-02-D-8483 and the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-18-F-218. The Car was driven by one Nagaraj. The Tribunal held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the Car driver and the Bus driver. The Car driver, deceased Nagaraj, was
held responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%. In
view of this finding, the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay compensation for the death of Nagaraj. The Tribunal's direction fastening 50% liability on the Insurance Company towards the death of Nagaraj is erroneous. Since the deceased was himself responsible for causing the accident to the extent of 50%, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Further, the deceased was neither a paid driver nor a third party. Hence, the - 17 -
judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Hence,
she prayed to allow her appeal.
9. Sri. F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the
Corporation, vehemently contended that the Tribunal wrongly fastened the liability on both the Corporation and the Insurance Company in the ratio of 50:50. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability entirely on the driver of the Car. The Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence led by the respondent and the documents produced as per Exs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal awarded high and exorbitant compensation and it requires reduction. The Tribunal wrongly held that the Bus was proceeding on the extreme right side of the road, in fact, the right wheels of the Bus were stationed on the mud road (foot path). The sketch shows the road was 24 feet wide, which clearly establishes that the Car driver was at fault. Hence, he prayed to allow appeals filed by the KSRTC. - 18 -
10. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. The accident is of the year
2009. However, the Tribunal assessed the notional income
of the deceased Nagaraj (MVC.No.6399/2009) at only Rs.3,500/- per month, which ought to have been reassessed at Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation to the claimants in MVC.No.6401/2009 and MVC.No.6400/2009. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the conventional heads. Hence, he prayed to allow his appeal.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal memo including original records of the Tribunal, the points that would arise for our consideration in these appeals are:
1. Whether the Insurance Company has made out sufficient grounds to establish that the accident in question occurred solely due to the negligence of the Car - 19 - driver/deceased Nagaraj, or whether negligence is also attributable to the KSRTC Bus driver?
2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions is just and reasonable, or does it call for enhancement or reduction?
12. To prove their claim, the claimants in
MVC.No.6399/2009 examined one of the claimants as PW.1 and relied upon Ex.P1 - FIR, Ex.P2 - Charge sheet, Ex.P3 - P.M.Report and Ex.P4 - IMV Report, which clearly demonstrates that the accident has occurred due to the fault of both the Bus driver and the Car driver. Admittedly, neither the Insurance Company nor KSRTC challenged column No.17 of the charge sheet. Therefore, considering the nature of accident and applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the Tribunal has rightly saddled liability on the Insurance Company and the Corporation in the ratio of 50:50, which is fair and reasonable, does not call for any interference. - 20 - In MVC.6399/2009 (deceased N.Nagaraj):
13. MFA.No.4790/2012 is filed by the appellant -
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., and MFA.No.6673/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on the grounds of negligence and quantum of compensation challenging the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in
MVC.No.6399/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas MFA.No.5509/2012 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6399/ 2009.
14. The claimants have contended that claimant
No.1, Smt. Roopa, is the wife of deceased Nagaraj and claimant No.2 Kum. Amulya is the daughter of deceased Nagaraj. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 41 years and he was running the Amulya Tours and Travels business and earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- p.m. But, to corroborate the same, the claimants have not - 21 - furnished any other documents, but the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased Nagaraj at Rs.3,500/- p.m. The accident is of the year 2009. Taking note of the Circular issued by ‘Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’ as well as ‘High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru’, we assess the notional income of the deceased Nagaraj at Rs.5,000/- p.m. Admittedly, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the age group of deceased, the claimants are entitled for future prospects. Thus, we are adding 25% future prospects to the income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.6,250/- (5000 + 25%). There are two dependants of the deceased, hence, view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, - 22 - the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘14’. Thus, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is re-assessed as under: 5000 + 25% = 6250 x 12 x 14 x 2/3rd = Rs.7,00,000/-
15. The Tribunal has committed an error by
awarding meagre compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, which comes to Rs.80,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’.
16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards
‘loss of estate’ and Rs.10,000/- towards ‘funeral and transportation charges’, which is meagre one. We deem it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of - 23 - estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral and transportation expenses’.
17. Thus, in all claimants are entitled for modified compensation as under: Amount HEADS (in Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 7,00,000.00
2 Loss of estate 15,000.00
3 Loss of Consortium 80,000.00
4 Funeral expenses 15,000.00
Total 8,10,000.00
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 4,57,000.00
Enhanced compensation 3,53,000.0018. Hence, the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its date of realization, as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at 4,57,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,53,000/-. - 24 - MVC.No.6401/2009 (Deceased Ankajamma):
19. MFA.No.6671/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on
the ground of negligence and quantum of compensation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6401/2009, whereas MFA.No.6877/2012 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Ankajamma for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6401/2009. Since we arrived at a
conclusion that, the accident occurred due to negligent act
of the driver of KSRTC bus and driver of Car, both the KSRTC and Insurer of Car are liable to pay compensation equally. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, claimant No.1 Smt. Roopa is daughter-in-law and claimant No.2 is the granddaughter of deceased Ankajamma. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased Ankajamma was 65 years and she was earning Rs.4,000 p.m. from milk vending business and also drawing the pension of Rs.700/- p.m. - 25 -
20. Further the Tribunal considered the notional
income of the deceased Ankajamma at Rs.3,000/- p.m. In the absence of proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by 'Karnataka State Legal Services Authority' and 'High Court Legal Services Authority', Bengaluru, we assess the notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month and the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/-. Out of which consideration for awarding the compensation under the head 'loss of estate'. As compensation for loss of estate is distinct from compensation for loss of dependency, which focuses on the financial support the deceased provided to their family.
21. Loss of estate compensates for the financial
losses incurred by the deceased's estate, such as lost savings or diminished property value, which are recoverable by the estate itself rather than the dependents. The key difference is that dependency claims are for financial support lost by family members who relied - 26 - on the deceased, while estate claims are for the estate's general loss of assets and savings. Accordingly, different calculations apply to the multiplicand (the basis of the financial loss) in each case. A portion of the deceased's income is considered to annual contribution, which is then multiplied by an appropriate multiplier to determine the total 'loss of dependency'.
22. Loss of estate refers to the damages that the
estate could have claimed had the deceased been alive. This includes the deceased’s savings, lost property, and other assets that would have accrued to the estate. The calculation is based on the deceased's annual savings, not the total contribution to family expenses. These annual savings are multiplied by an appropriate multiplier to determine the total value of the loss to the estate. While dependency claims are made by the dependents of the deceased, estate claims are made by the estate itself. Dependency relates to the financial loss suffered by the family, whereas estate relates to the general financial loss - 27 - to the deceased's assets. Thus, the multiplicand for dependency is the deceased’s contribution to the family, while for estate it is the deceased’s annual savings. Hence, in this case, 'loss of estate' is taken into consideration instead of 'loss of dependency'.
23. There are three dependants to the deceased. The deceased was aged about 65 years, thus, multiplier applicable is '5'. Hence, 'loss of estate' is calculated as under: 5000 x 12 x 5 x 1/4th = Rs.75,000/-
24. The Tribunal has committed an error by not
awarding compensation under conventional heads. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, claimant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- - 28 - each, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium'.
25. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards
‘funeral and transportation charges’, which is meagre one. We deem it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral and transportation expenses’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection.
26. Thus, in all, claimants are entitled to modified compensation as under: Amount HEADS (in Rs.)
1 Loss of estate 75,000.00
2 Loss of Consortium 1,20,000.00
3 Loss of love and affection 15,000.00
4 Funeral and transportation charges 15,000.00
Total 2,25,000.00
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 85,000.00
Enhanced compensation 1,40,000.0027. Hence, the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its date of realization - 29 - as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.85,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-. MVC.No.6400/2009 (Smt. Roopa - injured)
28. MFA.No.6672/2012 is filed by the Corporation
challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6400/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas MFA.No.6876/2012 is filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in
MVC.No.6400/ 2009.
29. The claimant Smt. Roopa was aged about 29
years at the time of accident and she was working as Therapist in Jindal Nature Centre, Bengaluru and was drawing the salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. But, she has not furnished any document to substantiate the same. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant - Smt. Roopa at - 30 - Rs.3,000/- per month, which is on lower side. The accident is of the year 2009. Taking note of the Circular issued by the 'Karnataka State Legal Services Authority' as well as 'High Court Legal Services Committee', Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to re-assess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month.
30. The claimant was aged about 29 years at the
time of the accident. As per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is '17'. Thus, the compensation under the head 'loss of future earning capacity' is re-assessed as under: 5000 x 12 x 17 x 5% = Rs.51,000/- - 31 -
31. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.12,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings', which needs to be enhanced. We are granting compensation of Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.12,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings'.
32. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards 'medical expenses', which is fair and reasonable, does not call for any interference.
33. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss of amenities', which is fair and reasonable one, does not call of interference.
34. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,000/-
towards 'loss of income during the period of treatment'. Considering the head injury suffered by the claimant and permanent disability at 5%, she was under rest and has taken treatment for a period of two months. Therefore, taking notional income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- a sum of Rs.10,000/- (5000 x 2) is awarded under the - 32 - head of 'loss of income during the period of treatment'.
35. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following
modified compensation: HEADS Amount (in Rs.) Towards pain and sufferings 40,000.00 Medical expenses 14,000.00 Loss of amenities 25,000.00 Towards loss of future earning 51,000.00 capacity Loss of income during laid up period 10,000.00 Total 1,40,000.00 Compensation awarded by the 64,000.00 Tribunal Enhanced compensation 76,000.00
36. Hence, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its date of realization, as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.64,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.76,000/-. - 33 -
37. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA.No.5509/2012 and MFA.No.4790/2012 are allowed-in-part and MFA.No. 6673/2012 is dismissed. ii) MFA.No.6671/2012 is dismissed and MFA.No.6877/2012 is allowed-in-part. iii) MFA.No.6672/2012 is dismissed and MFA.No.6876/2012 is allowed-in-part. iv) In view of the fixing liability on both Insurance Company and KSRTC at the ratio of 50:50, the appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA.No.6674/2012 is dismissed. v) The judgment and award dated 17.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in MVC.No.6399/2009, MVC.No.6401/2009 and MVC.No.6400/2009 is modified to the extent stated herein above. vi) The claimants in MFA.No.5509/2012 (deceased Nagaraj - MVC.No.6399/2009) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- with - 34 - interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.3,53,000/-. vii) The claimants in MFA.No.6877/2012 (deceased Ankajamma - MVC.No.6401/2009) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.1,40,000/-. viii) The claimant in MFA.No.6876/2012 (injured Smt. Roopa - MVC.No.6400/2009) is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.76,000/-. ix) As it is held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both Car and KSRTC at the ratio of 50:50, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company and KSRTC are directed to pay 50% of the compensation amount with interest at 6% per annum within - 35 -
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. x) The amount deposited by both KSRTC and Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal within three weeks. xi) Draw the modified awards accordingly. xii) Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records.
xiii) No order as to costs. Pending I.A's, if any, shall stand disposed of as they do not survive for any consideration. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1