Karnataka HC Raises Compensation For Parents And Younger Sister Of 18-Year-Old Crash Victim To ₹16.93 Lakh

On 19 December 2018, Manjunatha K., aged 18, was fatally injured when a Bolero struck him after being hit by a Swift Dzire allegedly driven rashly and negligently.

His parents and younger sister claimed compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the Swift Dzire driver responsible, dismissed the claim against the Bolero’s owner and insurer, and awarded ₹16,22,000, including ₹15,12,000 for loss of dependency and consortium for the parents, but not the sister.

The claimants appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Supreme Court set out the applicable escalation on conventional heads of compensation; the High Court applied a 10% + 10% increase in this case.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782, consortium may be awarded to eligible family members, including a sibling.

The Court declined to increase the income used to calculate loss of dependency.

Although the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart indicated notional income of ₹12,500 per month, the claimants’ own pleadings and evidence stated that the deceased earned ₹10,000 per month; the Tribunal’s assessment was therefore upheld.

The Court found that the Tribunal had omitted escalation on conventional heads and had not awarded consortium to the deceased’s sister.

Applying Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, it recalculated consortium for all three claimants at ₹48,400 each and increased loss of estate and funeral expenses to ₹18,150 each.

The total award was enhanced from ₹16,22,000 to ₹16,93,500, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition until realization, excluding the delayed period of 327 days.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks; apportionment and disbursement were to follow the Tribunal’s order.