SMT GOWRAMMA K V vs M/S KATARIA MOVERS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3278 OF 2023 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3341 OF 2023 (MV-D)
IN MFA No. 3278/2023:
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOWRAMMA K.V.
W/O. NAGESH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
NIDARAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR
KUMARI. SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. KATARIA MOVERS
HOSAPET-BALLARY MAIN ROAD,
B/H BPCL PETROL PUMP,
TORANAGALLU,
SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARY DISTRICT-583 123.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH M.T., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.V. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 09.10.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7208/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM AND XXIII
ASCJ, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 3341/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA K V
W/O NAGESH
NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. SRI. NAGESH
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT
NIDARAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST,
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR
KUMARI. SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KATARIA MOVERS
HOSAPET - BALLARY MAIN ROAD,
B/H BPCL PETROL PUMP
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
TORANAGALLU
SANDUR TALUK
BALLARY DISTRICT-583 123.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE
5TH FLOOR,
KRUSHI BHAVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH M.T., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.V. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DATED 09.10.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2021 PASSED
IN MVC NO.7209/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM
AND XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-25), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These are the appeals filed by the claimants
challenging the common judgment and award dated
15.02.2021 in MVC Nos.7208/2018 and 7209/2018 on the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
file of MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short,
the ‘Tribunal’).
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks as
they were before the Tribunal for sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal in a
nutshell is that the claimant in MVC No.7208/2018 was the
rider of the motorcycle involved in the road traffic accident
and the claimants in MVC 7209/2018 are the parents of
the deceased child, which was its pillion rider.
4. The injured-claimant in MVC No.7208/2018
claimed compensation from the owner and insurance
Company of the offending lorry bearing registration
No.KA-35/B-5005, in respect of the injuries she sustained
in the road traffic accident involving her Access scooter
bearing registration number KA-01/HC-7362 and the
aforesaid lorry near Tabala Narayanappa Pipe Factory,
Kodur Village, on Malur-Tekal Road.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
5. The claimants in MVC No.7209/2018 claimed
compensation from the owner and insurance Company of
the offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-35/B-5005,
in respect of the death of their daughter in the road traffic
accident involving the Access scooter bearing registration
number KA-01/HC-7362 and the aforesaid lorry near
Tabala Narayanappa Pipe Factory, Kodur Village, on Malur-
Tekal Road.
6. It is the case of the claimants that the claimant in
MFA No.7208/2018, along with her daughter aged six
years, was going on the motorcycle on 18.08.2018 at
01:30 p.m. and the said vehicle met with an accident
involving the offending lorry, which was coming from the
opposite side and due to the accident, the claimant
sustained injuries and her daughter sustained grievous
injuries and later on succumbed to those injuries on
23.08.2018.
7. The claimants further contended that the claimant
in MFA No.7208/2018 has taken treatment in Government
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
Hospital, Malur, Gaurav Hospital, Kolar and the doctor
assessed that, she has sustained 'fracture of both bones of
rd
middle 3 left leg, fracture of left wrist pisiform, bilateral
inferior pubic remi fracture, fracture of left superior pubic
ramus'. She underwent surgery and was an inpatient in
the hospital and was discharged on 02.09.2018. She
contended that she is a homemaker and earns ` 25,000/-
per month by doing tailoring work. Due to the accident,
she cannot work; hence, she claimed compensation from
the owner and the insurance Company of the offending
lorry.
8. The claimants in MVC No.7209/2018, parents of
the deceased child, have taken contention that due to the
accident, the child sustained grievous injuries, shifted to
Government Hospital, Malur, and then to R.L.Jalapa
Hospital, Kolar and then to Rainbow Hospital,
Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru, wherein she took
treatment as inpatient for six days. However, she
succumbed to those injuries on 23.08.2018 while shifting
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
again to R.L.Jalapa Hospital. The petitioners/claimants
being the parents of the deceased have filed the claim
petition (MVC No.7209/2018) praying for compensation
under different heads.
9. The objection filed by respondent No. 1- owner of
the offending lorry, is that the vehicle was validly insured
with respondent no.2 and the driver held a valid driving
license. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. Respondent No. 2 - insurer filed objections
separately in both cases, but the objections are similar.
They contend that the claimant- Gowramma, did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence. The
insurance Company further contended that the respondent
No.1 did not inform about the accident and violated the
terms and conditions of the policy. The owner and insurer
of the Access Suzuki vehicle are necessary parties; hence,
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. After framing issues, recording evidence and
hearing arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
accident had taken place in the middle of the road and the
rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence; thus, there is 25% contributory
negligence on her part in causing the accident and thus
awarded compensation of ` 3,96,692/- in MVC
No.7208/2018 under the following heads :
1. Pain and sufferings ` 30,000/-
2. Medical expenses ` 1,08,292/-
3. Age, Loss of future income ` 1,94,400/-
Loss of income during laid up
4. ` 9,000/-
period
Loss of future amenities and
5. ` 20,000/-
happiness
Attendant, conveyance, food
6. ` 20,000/-
and nourishment charges
7. Future medical expenses ` 15,000/-
Total ` 3,96,692/-
and ` 7,00,608/- in MVC 7209/2018, and in both cases the
Tribunal deducted 25% of the aforesaid compensation as
contributory negligence.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
12. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal and aggrieved by fastening 25% negligence
on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, the claimants in
both cases are before this Court.
13. Heard arguments of both sides.
14. The learned counsel for the claimants in both
cases, Sri Gopal Krishna, would submit that the accident
did not take place in the middle of the road and that the
Tribunal wrongly appreciated the evidence on this point.
He further submitted that merely because the rider of the
motorcycle (Access scooter) did not possess a valid and
effective driving licence, it cannot be said that she was
contributed in causing the accident.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the claimant in MVC No.7208/2018 has
sustained 4 fractured injuries but the amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all heads is on
the lower side and further submits that, even though the
claimant has sustained 4 fractured injuries and the doctor
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
assessed disability at 42% to a particular limb, the
Tribunal has not at all considered these aspects and
awarded compensation on the lower side on all heads.
Further, in respect of claimants in MFA No.7209/2018, the
Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased
child appropriately and awarded compensation at a lower
side, which requires interference. Hence, prayed for
allowing both petitions.
16. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri
Rakesh for Sri Chandrashekar Reddy would submit that
the rider of the motorcycle was negligent because the spot
sketch clearly established that the accident took place in
the in the middle of the road and it was a head-on
collision, as is clear from the motor vehicle accident
report. Hence, the Tribunal's finding of 25% negligence on
the part of the claimant/rider of the motorcycle is just and
proper, and requires no interference.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
17. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable and requires no interference.
18. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
appeal papers and trial court records, the points that arise
for consideration are:
i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that
there is 25% negligence on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle in causing the accident
is erroneous?
ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to
enhancement of compensation?
19. The finding of this Court is in the affirmative for
the following:
REASONS
20. The facts established before the Tribunal are that
the claimant in MVC No.7208/2018 was the rider of a
motorcycle and her daughter aged six years was the pillion
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
rider and they met with an accident with the offending
lorry which was coming from the opposite side and
because of the accident, the claimant sustained injuries.
Her daughter succumbed to injuries sustained in the
aforesaid accident.
21. Ex.P.2 is the complaint lodged by the
complainant, wherein she stated that the driver of the
Canter Lorry drove rashly and negligently and dashed
against her two-wheeler, thereby causing the accident.
The charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the lorry.
22. The motorcycle rider has not produced her driving
licence. However, no charge sheet has been filed against
her alleging the offence of 'no driving licence'. The spot
panchanama as per Ex.P.3 and the spot sketch as per
Ex.P.4 reveal that the accident has taken place 15 ft. from
the eastern side; the width of the road is 30 ft. Thus, the
Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred in the middle
of the road is proper. The claimant has also not produced
her driving licence before the Tribunal. However, merely
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
because she was not holding valid and effective driving
licence, contributory negligence cannot be attributed
against the rider of the motorcycle. In this regard, this
Court places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Mohammed Siddique and another Vs
National Insurance Company Ltd. and others reported
in (2020) 3 SCC 57 . Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said
judgment read as follows:
“12. But the above reason, in our view, is
flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding
on a motor cycle along with the driver and
another, may not, by itself, without anything
more, make him guilty of contributory
negligence. At the most, it would make him
guilty of being a party to the violation of the
law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a
two-wheeled motorcycle, not to carry more
than one person on the motorcycle. Section
194-C, inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of
2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of
safety measures for motorcycle drivers and
pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a
person was a pillion rider on a motorcycle
along with the driver and one more person
on the pillion, may be a violation of the law.
But such violation by itself, without anything
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
more, cannot lead to a finding of
contributory negligence, unless it is
established that his very act of riding along
with two others, contributed either to the
accident or to the impact of the accident
upon the victim. There must either be a
causal connection between the violation and
the accident or a causal connection between
the violation and the impact of the accident
upon the victim. It may so happen at times,
that the accident could have been averted or
the injuries sustained could have been of a
lesser degree, if there had been no violation
of the law by the victim. What could
otherwise have resulted in a simple injury,
might have resulted in a grievous injury or
even death due to the violation of the law by
the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for
the violation of the law, either the accident
could have been averted or the impact could
have been minimised, that the principle of
contributory negligence could be invoked. It
is not the case of the insurer that the
accident itself occurred as a result of three
persons riding on a motorcycle. It is not
even the case of the insurer that the
accident would have been averted, if three
persons were not riding on the motorcycle.
The fact that the motorcycle was hit by the
car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly,
the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the
deceased was wearing a helmet and that the
deceased was knocked down after the car hit
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
the motorcycle from behind, are all not
assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High
Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the
motorcycle, could have added to the
imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and
is not based either upon pleading or upon
the evidence on record. Nothing was
extracted from PW 3 to the effect that 2
persons on the pillion added to the
imbalance.
13. Therefore, in the absence of any
evidence to show that the wrongful act on
the part of the deceased victim contributed
either to the accident or to the nature of the
injuries sustained, the victim could not have
been held guilty of contributory negligence.
Hence, the reduction of 10% towards
contributory negligence is clearly unjustified
and the same has to be set aside.”
23. In the aforesaid judgment, it is clearly held that,
in the absence of any evidence showing that the rider's
wrongful act contributed either to the accident or to the
nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, it cannot be
said that there is contributory negligence on his part. In
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
the aforesaid case, three persons were on a two-wheeler;
the rider and 2 pillion riders. It is held that if there is any
violation of the law, then, it amounts to an offence under
the Act, but that itself cannot be a ground to attribute
contributory negligence.
24. With this background, the facts of the present
case are to be examined.
25. As discussed above, the accident has taken place
in the middle of the road. In cross-examination, the
claimant denied the suggestion that she caused the
accident. It is elicited in her cross-examination that the
road is 30 feet wide and there was no heavy traffic on the
road. She denied the suggestion that she was driving the
scooter at high speed, suddenly applied the brakes, and
because of the speed, her child fell and an accident took
place due to her negligence. According to her, the lorry
was coming from the opposite side, and she saw it from
35 feet. No other vehicle was going either in front of or
behind the lorry.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
26. Police papers corroborate the claimant's evidence
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving by the lorry driver, and no charge-sheet was filed
against the motorcycle rider. Furthermore, the
respondents did not examine any witness to prove
contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the
motorcycle in causing the accident. RW.1 was only an
administrative officer of the Insurance Company and had
not seen the accident.
27. Considering these aspects, this Court holds that,
because the accident took place in the middle of the road
and the rider did not hold a valid and effective driving
licence, it cannot be said that there is 25% contributory
negligence on the part of the rider. Hence, the Tribunal's
finding on this point is erroneous.
28. In MFA No.7208/2018 , the claimant has
sustained following injuries.
i) fracture of both bones of middle 3rd left leg;
ii) fracture of left wrist pisiform;
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
iii) bilateral inferior pubic remi fracture;
iv) fracture of left superior pubic ramus.
29. The claimant was an in-patient in the hospital for
15 days. The doctor assessed disability at 42% to a
particular limb. The Tribunal disbelieved his evidence only
on the ground that the claimant did not produce any
document to show that she was working as a tailor.
However, it is not in dispute that the claimant is a
homemaker and this disability would definitely affect her
day-to-day working capacity. Hence, the disability of 42%
rd
to particular limb shall be taken as 1/3 to the whole
body, i.e., at 14%.
30. The accident has taken place in the year 2018. In
the absence of documents to show the claimant's actual
income, the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA
shall be considered. Accordingly, the claimant's income
shall be ` 12,500/- per month. She was 25 years of age on
the date of the accident. Hence, by placing reliance on the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
judgment of Hon’ble apex court in Sarla Varma and Ors
vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr. reported in AIR
2009 SC 3104 , the applicable multiplier is ‘18’. Hence,
`
the claimant is entitled for 12,500/- x 12 x 18 x 14% =
`
3,78,000/- towards 'loss of future earning capacity'.
`
31. The tribunal has awarded 30,000 under the head
`
'pain and sufferings', 9,000 under the head 'loss of
`
income during laid up period', 20,000 under the head
'loss of future amenities' and ` 15,000 under the head
'future medical expenses' which is on lower side. However,
the amount awarded by the tribunal under the head
'medical expenses', 'attendant, conveyance, food and
nourishment charges' requires no interference. The
claimant is entitled for three months income towards 'loss
of income during laid up period'. Considering the nature of
injuries sustained by the claimant, claimant is entitled for
` 70,000 towards 'pain and sufferings', ` 50,000 towards
'loss of future amenities' and ` 20,000 towards 'future
medical expenses'.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
32. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of ` 6,83,792/- instead of ` 3,96,692/- the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the following
heads :
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.70,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.1,08,292/-
Loss of future earning
3.
capacity
Rs. 3,78,000 /-
Loss of income during laid
4. Rs.37,500/-
up period
5. Loss of future amenities Rs.50,000/-
Attendant, conveyance,
6. food and nourishment
charges
Rs.20,000/-
7. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.6,83,792/-
In MFA No.7209/2018
33. The claimants are the parents of deceased child
by name Kum. Deeksha aged about six years. They
claimed compensation in respect of death of their child in
the accident.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
34. while discussing above, it is already held that the
25% negligence attributed against rider of the motorcycle
by the Tribunal as erroneous.
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case
cited supra has stated what would be the multiplier to be
taken in case of death or bodily injury. However, in the
said case, the multiplier to be adopted to the deceased at
the age of 15 and above was considered. Up to the age of
15, what would be the multiplier is not mentioned in the
said case. The said Sarla Verma's case cited supra is
upheld by full bench of Hon'ble Apex Court and in
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and others , reported in (2017) 16 Supreme
Court Cases 680.
36. In between Sarla Verma's case cited supra and
Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, Reshma Kumari vs.
Madan Mohan case is rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court
which is reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 . In Reshma
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
Kumari's case cited supra at para Nos.12 and 13 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"12. In Susamma Thomas (AIR 1994 SC 1631: 1994
AIR SCW 1356), this Court noticed the two decisions of
House of Lords, (1) Davies and Anr. v. Powell Duffryn
Associated Collieries Ltd.11 and (2) Nance v. British
Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. wherein two different
methods lump sum method and multiplier method -
were adopted for determination and for calculation of
compensation in fatal accident actions. This Court has
preferred the multiplier method adopted in Davies case.
While holding so, this Court also referred to another
decision of House of Lords in Mallett v. Mc Monagle. It
has been laid down in Susamma Thomas that multiplier
method was logically sound and legally well established.
The multiplier represented the number of year's
purchase on which the loss of dependency is
capitalized. The multiplier method involves the
ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the
multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the
case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate
multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by
the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants
whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what
capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate
to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by
way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, the Court
said that regard should also be had to the fact that
ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up
over the period for which the dependency is expected to
last. In Susamma Thomas this Court noticed that
English Courts have rarely applied operative multiplier
exceeding 16.
11. 1942 (1) All ER 657.12. 1951 (2) All ER
448.13. 1969 (2) All ER 178.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
13. The award of compensation in a motor accident
case based on the multiplier method is an established
norm in India now. A three-Judge Bench in Trilok
Chandra reiterated what was stated in Susamma
Thomas1 as regards determination compensation in
accident cases on the basis of multiplier method. In
Trilok Chandra, the Court considered Section 163A and
the Second Schedule which was not under consideration
in Susamma Thomas as Section 163A was not on the
statute when the judgment in Susamma Thomas was
delivered. It was observed that by incorporation of
Sections 163A and 163B in the 1988 Act the situation
had undergone a change. Under the Second Schedule,
the maximum multiplier could be upto 18 and not 16 as
was held in Susamma Thomas. In Trilok Chandra, the
maximum multiplier was fixed at 18 but the Court did
find several defects in the calculation of compensation
and the amount worked out in the Second Schedule.
Importantly this Court stated in Trilok Chandra that
Tribunals and the Courts cannot go by the ready
reckoner; the Schedule can only be used as a guide.
This is what this Court said in paras 17 and 18 of the
Report:
"17. The situation has now undergone a change with
the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as
amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The most
important change introduced by the amendment insofar
as it relates to determination of compensation is the
insertion of Sections 163-A and 163-B in Chapter XI
entitled "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party
Risks". Section 165-A begins with a non-obstante clause
and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated
in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of
the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we
turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the
mode of calculation of compensation for third party
accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The
first column gives the age group of the victims of
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and
the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum
of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the
deceased victim. According to this table the multiplier
varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to
which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule
the maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as
was held in Susamma Thomas case [(1994) 2 SCC 176:
(AIR 1994 SC 1631: 1994 AIR SCW 1356)].
18. We must at once point out that the calculation of
compensation and the amount worked out in the
Schedule suffer from several defects. For example, in
Item 1 for a victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is
shown to be 15 years and the multiplicand is shown to
be Rs. 3000. The total should be 3000 x 15=45,000 but
the same is worked out at Rs. 60,000. Similarly, in the
second item the multiplier is 16 and the annual income
is Rs. 9000; the total should have been Rs. 1,44,000
but is shown to be Rs. 1,71,000. To put it briefly, the
table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the tribunals
nor the courts can go by the ready reckoner. It can only
be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier
cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of
the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor,
dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his
parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in
the choice of the multiplier. But these mistakes are
limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of
other items. What we propose to emphasise is that the
multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This
is the improvement over the earlier position that
ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it
necessary to state the correct legal position as courts
and tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the
present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of
24 which the High Court raised to 34, thereby showing
lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier
system in Davies case".
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
(Emphasis supplied by us)"
37. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reshma
Kumari's case cited supra, examined Sarla Verma's case
cited supra and finally at paragraph No.40 it is held as
follows :
"40. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our
conclusions as follows:
(i) In the applications for compensation made under
Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the
age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims
Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in
Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma (AIR
2009 SC 3104: 2009 AIR SCW 4992) read with para 42
of that judgment.
(ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15
years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A
under which the claim for compensation has been
made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated
in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed
out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma should be
followed.
(iii) As a result of the above, while considering the claim
applications made under Section 166 in death cases
where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there
is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek
guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule
in the 1988 Act.
(iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and
guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for
determination of compensation in cases of death.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
(v) While making addition to income for future
prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of
the judgment in Sarla Verma17.
(vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living
expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals
shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in
paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla
Verma17subject to the observations made by us in para
38 above.
(vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall
apply to all pending matters where above aspects are
under consideration."
38. The said finding of Reshma Kumari’s case cited
supra is upheld in Pranay Sethi’s case cited supra. Thus,
according to these judgments, in case of death or bodily
injury to a minor aged less than 15 years then,
irrespective of Section 166 or 163-A claim petition, the
relevant applicable multiplier is '15'.
39. With this background, the recent judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court are to be examined. In Karuna
Parmar vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3324, the Hon'ble Apex Court at
paragraph Nos.14 and 15 held as follows :
"14. Coming to the case of the deceased child, we are
not inclined to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal on
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
the yearly income. Recently, in Baby Sakshi Greola v.
Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 2024 SCC Online
SC 3692, J. B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, has
elaborated that:
"29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has
held that taking notional income is not the
correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages
payable to a skilled workman in the concerned
State has to be taken into consideration
because, that would be the minimum amount
which she would have earned on becoming a
major. In this case, the minimum wage payable
to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the
time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was
Rs. 4,358/- per month." (Emphasis supplied)
15. For this purpose, we advert to the notification under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for a skilled worker in
2014 wherein Rs. 223/- per day has been fixed. The
monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,690/-,
and consequently, the yearly income of the deceased
has to be considered as Rs.80,280/-. The compensation
payable, therefore, is as follows:
FINAL COMPENSATION OF DECEASED AVIKA PARMAR
Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance
with:
Monthly Income 223 x 30 = Rs. Baby Sakshi Greola V.
6,690/- Manzoor Ahmad Simon and
Another, (2022) SCC Online
SC.
Yearly Income 6,6900 x 12 =
Rs.80,280/-
Future Prospects 80,820 x 40% =
(40%) Rs.1,12,392/-
Deduction (1/2) 1,12,392/2 = National Insurance Co.Ltd V.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
Rs.56,196/- 680 Para 42 & 49
Multiplier (18) 56,196 x 18 =
Rs.10,11,528
Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
Loss of Funeral Rs.18,150/-
Expenses
Loss of 48,400 x 2
Consortium =Rs.96,800/-
Total Rs. 11,44,628/-
Thus, the difference in compensation payable
finally in the case of Appellant No.1 is as under:
MACT High Court This Court
Rs. 3,84,792/- Rs.5,41,292/- Rs.9,09,000/-
Thus, the difference in compensation payable
finally in the case of Appellant No. 2 is as under:
MACT High Court This Court
Rs.27,320/- - Rs.94,320/-
Thus, the difference in compensation payable
finally in the case relating to the deceased child is as
follows:
MACT High Court This Court
Rs.5,30,000/- Rs.5,30,000/- Rs.11,44,628/-"
40. By placing reliance on the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manzoor Ahmad Simon reported in (2022) SCC OnLine
SC it was held that, the income of the minor children is to
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
be considered on par with the wages payable to a skilled
workman in the relevant State by examining Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. The same is followed in the subsequent
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh's case cited
supra.
41. The address of the claimants mentioned in the
claim petition shows that they are residents of
Nidaramangala, Malur Taluk, Kolar district which comes
under Zone-IV. Hence, as per the list of scheduled
employments, fixed minimum wages is ` 11,733.20/- per
month at Zone-IV. Said income shall be considered as the
income of deceased at the time of accident. As the
deceased left behind her parents only as its dependants,
50% of the aforesaid income is to be deducted towards its
personal and living expenses by placing reliance on Sarla
Varma's case cited supra. By placing reliance on Pranay
Sethi's case cited supra, 40% shall be added towards
future prospects. Thus, the claimants are entitled for
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
` 14,78,383.20/- ( ` 11,733.20/- + 40% x 12 x 15 x 50%)
towards 'loss of dependency'.
42. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram
& Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 and in the case of
Pranay Sethi’s case cited supra, the claimants are also
`
entitled for 40,000/- each with 10% + 10% escalation
charges towards 'loss of consortium', which comes to
` 96,800/-. They are also entitled for ` 15,000/- each with
10% + 10% escalation charges i.e., ` 36,300/- towards
‘loss of estate’ and towards ‘transportation of dead body
and funeral expenses’. The child was hospitalized for 6
days. The medical bills are produced before the Court
which reveal that the claimants have spent ` 3,54,143/-
and the same being awarded by the Tribunal is kept intact.
43. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
` 19,65,626/- as against ` 9,34,143/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
Heads in `
Medical expenses 3,54,143/-
Loss of Dependency 14,78,383/-
Loss of Consortium 96,800/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Transportation of Dead Body 18,150/-
and Funeral Expenses
Total 19,65,626/-
44. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
a. The appeals are allowed in part .
b. The common judgment and award dated 15.02.2021
in MVC Nos.7208/2018 and 7209/2018 on the file of
MACT, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru is
modified holding that the claimant in MVC
No.7208/2018 is entitled for total compensation of
` 6,83,792/- as against ` 3,96,692/- ( ` 2,97,525/-)
awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants in MVC
No.7209/2018 is entitled to ` 19,65,626/- as against
` `
9,34,143/- ( 7,00,608/-) awarded by the Tribunal.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58466
MFA No. 3278 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 3341 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010245942023
c. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. However, the claimants are not entitled
for interest on delayed period.
d. The respondents shall deposit the compensation
amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal
within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
e. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit shall be as
per the order of the Tribunal.
f. No order as to costs
g. Draw modified award accordingly.
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
rs
CT:SM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA