Facts
On October 4, 2016, K.J. Sushanth Rai died in a motor vehicle accident when his motorcycle was struck by a KSRTC bus driving on the wrong side of the road while overtaking
Source reference: p. 5The deceased was 31 years old and allegedly earned ₹11,000 per month as a 'RSSM' at Rajatha Distributors
Source reference: p. 11The claimants (wife and minor son) filed a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act
Source reference: p. 5The Tribunal awarded ₹22,41,200 with 6% interest
Source reference: p. 4KSRTC appealed (MFA No. 4996/2020) seeking reduction, while the claimants filed cross-objections (MFA.CROB No. 31/2021) seeking enhancement
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the income of the deceased was correctly assessed at ₹11,000 per month based on the salary certificate
Source reference: p. 102. Whether the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads (specifically "loss of love and affection") was excessive or duplicative
Source reference: p. 103. Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal (6%) requires modification
Source reference: p. 23Law Applied
The court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding just compensation
Source reference: p. 5It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to standardize conventional heads (loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses) and future prospects
Source reference: p. 17, 20Regarding the standard of proof for income, it applied Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699), which establishes that the MV Act is beneficial legislation where facts must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt
Source reference: p. 13-15For the interest rate, the court cited United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Malyadri.M (2026: KHC: 25458), affirming that 9% is generally appropriate in death cases
Source reference: p. 22Reasoning
The High Court rejected KSRTC’s contention that the income was unproven, noting that the employer (PW3) testified and produced a signed salary certificate (Ex. P8) on the firm's letterhead
Source reference: p. 11-13Under Rajwati, strict proof of business registration is not mandatory for a Tribunal to accept salary evidence
Source reference: p. 15The Court found the Tribunal’s award of ₹2,00,000 for "loss of love and affection" was an impermissible duplication under Pranay Sethi, as such emotions are subsumed within the "loss of consortium" head
Source reference: p. 17-19Regarding interest, the Court found 6% too low given the claimants' circumstances (a son who never saw his father) and enhanced it to 8%, but limited the accrual to the 25% balance amount since 75% was already deposited by KSRTC in 2020
Source reference: p. 23-24Holding
The Court partly allowed the appeals, reducing the total compensation from ₹22,41,200 to ₹20,92,264
The Court enhanced the interest rate from 6% to 8% per annum
Source reference: p. 24The "loss of dependency" was fixed at ₹19,71,264 based on an income of ₹11,000 with 40% future prospects and a 16 multiplier
Source reference: p. 16The Court ordered the modified amount to be released to the claimants upon application
Source reference: p. 25Original Court PDF
SMT. K S PAVITHRAvsTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in