Karnataka High Court: In 2 appeals challenging the common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), the Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. modified the impugned judgment and award, enhancing the compensation to ₹11,98,943 after considering the deceased’s prospects. The Court simultaneously dismissed the insurance company’s appeal, finding no merit in its challenge upon a consideration of the facts and evidence on record.
Background
The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30 May 2015 at around 7:30 p.m., when the deceased was walking along the side of the road. A Mahindra Bolero Jeep, allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, causing grievous injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 12 June 2015.
The parents of the deceased subsequently filed a claim petition seeking compensation of ₹15,80,000. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the MACT awarded compensation of ₹9,40,943, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, under various heads, including loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation, and other non-pecuniary damages. The Tribunal further held the insurance company liable to satisfy the award.
The Company aggrieved by the judgment and award by the Tribunal filed an appeal on 3 contentions. Firstly, it was submitted that the insured vehicle was not involved. Secondly, that the deduction was wrongly taken as 1/3rd by the Tribunal when the deceased was a bachelor and was survived by his only 2 parents. Lastly, a feeble challenge was made to the interest awarded at 9 per cent per annum.
The claimants contended that the Tribunal had erred in not awarding compensation towards prospects. They submitted that the deceased was employed as a daily-wage labourer (coolie), earning approximately ₹400 per day, and was therefore entitled to an addition towards future prospects. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali, (2021) 17 SCC 148, they argued that even persons without permanent employment are entitled to future prospects, as every individual strives to improve their income over time and earnings cannot be presumed to remain static. The claimants also fairly conceded that the Tribunal had incorrectly deducted one-third of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses. Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, they submitted that since the deceased was a bachelor, the appropriate deduction ought to have been one-half.
Issues
-
Whether the vehicle was in fact involved in the accident?
-
Whether the Tribunal has wrongly made deduction for personal and living expenses?
-
Whether prospects should have been awarded by the Tribunal?
Decision and Analysis
The Court after considering the documents filed held that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of ₹11,98,943 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Court further held that the examination of the impugned award showed that the driver of the Bolero Jeep was guilty of rash and negligent driving. There was no denial of the involvement of the vehicle.
The Court denying the contentions of the Company clarified that the case of Veerappa v. Siddappa, 2008 SCC OnLine Kar 505 where the Division Bench held that where there is a fraud being played, there is no third-party liability on the Company, is not applicable to the present case. The Company neither raised a ground of fraud nor has any evidence in support been shown to the Court.
The Court held the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reassessed as follows:
|
Sl. No. |
Particulars |
Amount (₹) |
|
1.
|
Loss of dependency [9,000×1/2=4,500/- 4,500/-+25% future prospects =5,625/- 5,625x12x14] |
₹9,45,000 |
|
2.
|
Loss of consortium [₹40,000×2] |
₹80,000 |
|
3.
|
Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses |
₹30,000 |
|
4.
|
Medical expenses |
₹1,43,943 |
|
Total |
₹11,98,943 |
|
|
Awarded by Tribunal |
₹9,40,943 |
|
|
Enhanced compensation |
₹2,58,000 |
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Company and partly allowed claim petition for the enhancement of the compensation by the claimants. The Court modified the impugned judgment and award to the extent that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹2,58,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, in addition to ₹9,40,943 awarded by the Tribunal. The Court clarified that the remaining portion of the impugned award of the Tribunal will remain undisturbed.
The Court further directed the Company to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 6 per cent per annum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the claimants.
[United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shivamma, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 2987, decided on 9-2-2026]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: A.M Venkatesh, Advocate
For the Respondent: R.D Pancham, V.Padmanabha Kedilaya, Advocates
