THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs SRI. R G GOVINDARAJ
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6872 OF 2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4356 OF 2017 (MV-D)
IN MFA No. 6872/2017
BETWEEN:
1.
R.G. GOVINDARAJ
S/O GIRIYAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
2. NALINA H
W/O R.G. GOVINDARAJ,
NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3. UDAY R.G,
S/O R.G. GOVINDARAJ,
NOW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.3 IS SINCE MINOR
REP. BY HIS FATHER i.e., APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O BEHIND LIC OFFICE,
HIRIYUR TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 599.
…APPELLANTS
SIGN
(BY SRI. N.R. RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
AND:
1. B. BHASKAR
S/O.RAJEDRAN,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O NO.4/689, KALLATHUKADU,
KARKODALPATY, RASIPURAM TOWN,
NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 380 036.
2. THE BRANCH MANGER
BRANCH OFFICE,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
VIJAYASHRI, OPPOSITE
NANJUNDESHWARA PETROL BUNK,
NEAR UNION PARK, DAVANAGERE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHUVAN B.M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2021;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.148/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 4356/2017
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: VIJAYASHRI,
OPP: NANJUNDESHWARA PETROL BUNK,
NEAR UNION PARK, DAVANAGERE ROAD,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
CHITRADURGA - 577 101.
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
MR. A.R. LAKSHMINARAYAN,
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHUVAN B.M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R.G. GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O GIRIYAPPA,
2. SMT. NALINA H
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O SRI. R.G. GOVINDARAJ,
3. UDAY R.G
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
S/O SRI. R.G. GOVINDARAJ,
RESPONDENT NO.3 BEING MINOR,
REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN AND FATHER
i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BEHIND LIC OFFICE, HIRIYUR TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 102.
4. SRI. R. BHASKAR
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O RAJENDRAN
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
RESIDENT OF NO.4/689,
KALLATHUDADU, KARKODALPATTY,
RASIPURAM TOWN, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU STATE - 600 204
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.TN. 49/H-2704)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. RANGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2017, NOTICE TO R4 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.148/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.13,26,000/- WITH INTEREST AT
7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF PETITION TILL
ITS ENTIRE REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 14.03.2017
passed by Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Hiriyur, ( Tribunal )
in M.V.C.no.148/2015, these appeals are filed.
2. M.F.A.no.4356/2017 is filed by insurer challenging
award on quantum, while M.F.A.no.6872/2017 is filed by
claimants for enhancement of compensation.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
3. Brief facts leading to these appeals, as per
claimants, are that at about 12:45 p.m. on 06.01.2015, Chetan
was travelling on motorcycle no.KA-25/EB-7128 near
Greenland Hotel, in Hiriyur taluk on N.H.4 road, when driver of
lorry no.TN-48-H-2704 drove it in rash and negligent manner
and dashed against motorcycle from backside and caused
accident. In accident, Chetan sustained fatal injuries and died
on spot. Alleging loss of dependency on account of his sudden
death, his parents and brother filed claim petition against
owner and insurer of lorry under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 ( MV Act ).
4. On appearance, only insurer filed objections
opposing claim petition on all grounds.
5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following
issues-
i. Whether petitioners prove that the deceased
Chetan S/o.Govindaraj died due to the
accident was caused on 06.01.2015 by the
driver of lorry bearing no.TN-48-FH-2704
being driven in rash and negligent manner at
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
NH-4 road near Green Land Hotel in Hiriyur
taluk?
ii. Whether the respondent no.2 proves that the
deceased Chetan who was driving motorcycle
no.KA-25-EB-7128 has also caused
contributory negligence in the accident?
iii. Whether respondent no.2 proves that the
driver of lorry was not having valid licence on
the date of accident?
iv. Whether petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, for what quantum? From
whom?
v. What award or decree?
6. In trial, claimant no.1 deposed as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P14. An official of insurer was examined as
RW.1 and Ex.R1 was got marked.
7. On consideration, tribunal held issue no.1 in
affirmative, issues no.2 and 3 in negative and issue no.4 by
assessing total compensation of Rs.13,26,000/- with interest at
7.5% p.a. and issue no.5 by holding respondents jointly and
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
severally liable to pay same. Dis-satisfied with assessment,
these appeals are filed.
8. Sri Bhuvan, learned counsel appearing for Sri
B.C.Seetharama Rao, Advocate for insurer submitted that
addition of 50% future prospects towards monthly income of
deceased while assessing compensation was contrary to
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others ,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 and sought for allowing appeal
by modifying award.
9. On other hand, Sri N.R.Rangegowda, learned
counsel for claimants seeks for dismissal of insurer's appeal and
to allow claimants' appeal.
10. It was submitted that as on date of accident,
deceased Chetan was a I year Bachelor of Engineering student.
Tribunal was not justified in assessing monthly income at
Rs.6,000/-. It was submitted that salary of an Engineering
student was required to be taken at Rs.25,000/- per month, as
considered by Division Bench of this Court in Nagaraja
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd. in M.F.A.no.2741/2023 [2025:KHC:39641-DB]
( Nagaraja's case). Tribunal has also erred in not awarding
compensation under conventional heads to claimants.
11. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
12. From above, occurrence of accident due to negligent
driving of insured vehicle by its driver, leading to death of
Chetan and claimants being entitled for compensation are not
in dispute. Only dispute is about quantum. Therefore, common
point that would arise for consideration is-
"Whether compensation assessed by tribunal
calls for modification?"
13. Above point is answered partly in affirmative for
following-
REASONS
14. There is no dispute about fact that as on date of
accident Chetan was 19 years of age pursuing Engineering
Course in I year. While assessing compensation, tribunal
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
considered monthly income at Rs.6,000/- by referring to
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishna & Anr.
v. Gokul & Ors. in CIVIL APPEAL no.9858 of 2013 dated
31.10.2013, where, in case of an Engineering student, Hon'ble
Supreme Court had considered annual income at Rs.42,000/-,
which would be Rs.3,500/- per month, by noting that accident
in said case was of year 2003, unlike in present case of 2015,
tribunal moderated it to Rs.6,500/- per month. Perusal of
judgment in Nagaraja's case would reveal date of accident as
27.06.2018, wherein deceased Sanath Rao was in IV Semester
and completed three earlier Semesters in distinction. Division
Bench also took note of fact that deceased Sanath Rao was
pursuing Engineering in National Institute of Engineering, a
prestigious Engineering College to assess monthly income at
Rs.25,000/-.
15. Learned counsel for insurer would be justified in
submitting that an exact parallel cannot be drawn to this case
as Chetan was studying in East-West Institute of Technology.
But Exs.P10 and 12 are SSLC and PUC markscards of deceased,
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
which would indicate deceased had earned distinction in
academics.
16. Under above circumstances, it is found appropriate
to assess monthly income of deceased at Rs.20,000/-.
Deceased was a bachelor, thus as per decision in Pranay
Sethi's case future prospects at 40% has to be added and
deduction towards personal expenses will have to be at 50%
and multiplier applicable would be '18'. Consequently,
compensation towards loss of dependency would be
Rs.30,24,000/- .
17. Insofar as award under conventional heads,
claimants are parents and younger brother. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Mariyakutty and Others v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Ker
3039, has held consortium cannot be granted to siblings, but
parents would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of
filial consortium i.e., Rs.80,000/-. Apart from same, they
would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses
and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, total
compensation awarded under conventional heads would be
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
Rs.1,10,000/-. Since more than six years have lapsed, as
held in Pranay Sethi's case ( supra ), 20% has to be awarded
under conventional heads, which comes to Rs.22,000/- . Thus,
total compensation would be Rs.31,56,000/-.
18. Consequently, following -
ORDER
i. Appeals are allowed in part , judgment and award
dated 14.03.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge & Addl.
MACT, Hiriyur, in M.V.C.no.148/2015 is modified.
Compensation is re-assessed from Rs.13,26,000/- to
Rs.31,56,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from date
of claim petition till deposit.
ii. Out of compensation amount, apportionment of
compensation shall follow same ratio as per tribunal's
award.
iii. Insurer is directed to deposit balance compensation
amount along with interest before tribunal within six
weeks.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59218
MFA No. 6872 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 4356 of 2017
CNR: KAHC010416452017
iv. On deposit, compensation with interest is ordered to
be released in favour of claimants by electronic
means.
v. Amount in deposit, in insurer's appeal, is ordered to be
transmitted to tribunal for disbursal.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22