Karnataka High Court: In the present appeals regarding computation of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case where one of the appellant succumbed to the injuries, Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., after considering the appellants’ age, salary slips, and motor accident report, enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellants.
Background
On 2 June 2013, the appellants motorcycle collided with other motorcycle, which resulted in multiple grievous injuries to 1 appellant, while the other suffered head injuries and succumbed to the same on 6 August 2013. At the time of death, the deceased was 30 years old and was employed as a supervisor in a private company.
The 2 claim petitions were instituted before the trial court, seeking compensation. The trial court ordered compensation of Rs 9,97,500 in favour of the deceased appellant while the other appellant was awarded compensation of Rs 3,94,650.
Aggrieved by the awards, the appellants as well as the Insurance Company preferred 4 separate appeals under Section 173(1), Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Issues for determination
-
Whether the appellants were entitled to enhance compensation?
-
Was the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount?
Analysis
The Court observed that at the time of accident, the deceased was 30 years old and unmarried; accordingly, 50 per cent deduction was applied. Following Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court applied an appropriate multiplier of 17. Considering the deceased was employed in a private firm, future prospects were added at 40 per cent. Compensation for loss of consortium, which was not awarded earlier, was fixed at Rs 80,000.
With respect to the deceased’s income, the salary slip established the employment details and a net salary of Rs 8443. The Court further noted the Motor Vehicle Accident Report dated 6 June 2013 contained details of the involvement of 2 vehicles, which matched the description of the vehicles involved in the present case. Further, the Court stated that once the report of the police authorities which is on record which shows a collision and the owner of the offending vehicle gives evidence to state that there was no rash and negligent driving on his behalf, it would clearly mean the vehicle was involved in the accident. Thus, the Court did not accept the Insurance Company’s submissions that the vehicle was not involved in the accident.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court enhanced compensation of the deceased to Rs 14,34,500 and granted Rs 4,59,450 to the injured appellant, along with an interest rate of 6 per cent p.a. from the date of petition to the date of realisation.
[Boopalan J. v. Orien Precast (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 2988, decided on 6-1-2026]
*Judgment authored by Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Advocates who appeared in this case:
In MFA No. 5416 of 2019 and 845 of 2019
For the Appellants: Prakash.M.H., Advocate
For the Respondents: Lokesh Malavalli; C. Shankar Reddy; Janardhana Reddy, Advocates.
In MFA No. 8290 of 2018 and 8291 of 2018
For the Appellants: Janardhana Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Prakash. M.H.; M.G. Ravisha; Lokesh Malavalli; C. Shankar Reddy, Advocates
