Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Officer vs Nandakumar Madhukumar Aherrao on 10 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
M.F.A. CROB NO.19/2021 (MV-D)
IN
M.F.A.NO.4824/2020
C/W
M.F.A. NO.4824/2020 (MV-D)
M.F.A. NO.6611/2021 (MV-D)
IN M.F.A. CROB No.19/2021
IN M.F.A.NO.4824/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. NANDA KUMAR MADHUKAR AHERRAO
MADHUKAR AHERRO
Digitally signed by
AGE 61 YEARS.
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM 2. CHAYABAI NANDAKUMAR AHERRAO
Location: HIGH W/O NANDAKUMAR MADHUKAR AHERRAO
COURT OF AGE 51 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/AT KALWAN, ABHONA
ABHONA KALWAN NASHIK
MAHARASHTRA STATE-423502.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SENIOR DEPOT MANAGER
K S R T C CENTRAL DIVISION NO.4
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560027
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
REPRESENTED BY DEPOT MANAGER
K S R T C GUTTURU POST
HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
2. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
UNITY BUILDING TOWER BLOCK
4TH BLOCK, J C ROAD
BANGALORE-560002
REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, WALI COMPLEX
HARIHAR-577601.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R2)
---
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.4824/2020 IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE CPC, READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.845/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, J.M.F.C AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T,
HARIHARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.4824/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
UNITY BUILDING, TOWER BLOCK
4TH FLOOR, J C ROAD
BENGALURU
REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, VALI COMPLEX
HARIHAR
NOW REP BY ITS APPEALS HUB
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-III
2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS
M G ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
BENGALURU-560001
REP BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. NANDAKUMAR MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
S/O MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC-NIL.
2. SMT. CHAYABAI NANDAKUMAR AHERRAO
W/O NANDAKUMAR MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O. KALAVANA ABHONA
ABHONA KALAVANA
NASIK, MAHARASHTRA.
3. SENIOR DEPOT MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL DIVISION-4
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU
REP BY DEPOT MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C. GUTTUR POST
HARIHAR TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.845/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MACT, HARIHARA AWARDING TOTAL COMPENSATION OF
RS.62,97,747.50/-, WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. ON
RS.56,79,499.50/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN M.F.A. NO.6611/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL DIVISION, K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
BY ITS SENIOR DEPOT MANAGER
KSRTC, GUTTUR POST
HARIHAR TALUK-577601.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. NANDAKUMAR MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
S/O MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. CHAYABAI NANDAKUMAR AHERRAO
W/O NANDAKUMAR MADHUKUMAR AHERRAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF KALAVAN ABHONA
ABHONA KALAWAN NASHIK
MAHARASTRA STATE-423502.
3. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
UNITY BUILDING
TOWER BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR
J C ROAD, BANGALORE -560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
BRANCH OFFICE
WAH COMPLEX, HARIHARA-577601.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.845/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., M.A.C.T., HARIHARA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.62,97,747.50/- WITH INTEREST 6 PERCENT P.A. ON RS.
56,79,499.50/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A. CROB CONNECTED WITH M.F.A.'s HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.11.2024, COMING ON FOR
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A.
PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) Challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.845/2016 passed by the Sr. Civil Judge, JMFC and Addl. MACT, Harihara, the Insurance Company has filed MFA No.4824/2020, claimants have filed MFA.Crob No.19/2021 and KSRTC has filed MFA No.6611/2021.
2. Appellant in MFA No.4824/2020 was respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were claimants and respondent No.3 was respondent No.1 in MVC No.845/2016 before the Tribunal. In MFA.Crob. No.19/2021, appellants were claimants and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. In MFA No.6611/2021, appellant was respondent No.1, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were claimants and respondent No.3 was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021
3. The legal heirs of deceased Sri.Nilesh Nandakumar Aherrao filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking compensation for his death in the road traffic accident that occurred on 28.12.2015. It was contended that the deceased was proceeding in KSRTC Airavata bus bearing registration No.KA-57/F-897 from Bengaluru to Mumbai. When the said bus reached near Nijalingappa Tomb, Siba, N.H.4 on the Chitradurga-Davanagere road, the driver of the bus drove the same at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and while taking a turn, lost control over the bus resultantly bus toppled down and several inmates of the bus were injured and 3 persons succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It was further contended that Nilesh Nandakumar sustained head injury, was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Chitradurga, later to SSMIS Hospital, Davanagere and then to Fortis hospital, Bengaluru. He did not recover from the injuries and succumbed to the same on 10.01.2016. It was also contended that he was working as Software Engineer at KPIT Technologies Ltd. and earning Rs.4,45,498/- p.a. Later, he submitted resignation and obtained the letter of appointment from Infosys -7- NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru with monthly basic salary of Rs.66,668/-. Along with other benefits his total salary was Rs.1,80,000/- p.m. Claimants have lost the emotional and financial dependency due to untimely death of the deceased. They sought for award of compensation of Rs.4,41,75,000/- along with interest.
4. Respondent No.1 filed objections contending that the driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly. At that time, a lorry came behind the bus in high speed. To avoid the accident, the driver of the bus took the bus to the left side which resulted in toppling of the bus. It was further contended that the bus involved in the accident was duly insured with respondent No.2 and insurance was in force and hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 filed objections denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It was contended that the Tribunal at Harihara lacks territorial jurisdiction and the claimants in collusion with the police have filed claim petition seeking exorbitant compensation. It was further contended that the deceased had resigned from his employment, hence, he had no earnings at the time of accident and the documents -8- NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 produced with regard to future employment at Infosys Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru, are created for the purpose of claiming compensation. They sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW-1, CWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23 and Exs.C1 to C4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 examined RW-1 and RW2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R15. CWs-1 and 2 got marked Exs.CR1 to CR3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,43,098/- p.a., deducted professional tax of Rs.2,400/-, deducted 50% of such income towards his personal and living expenses, added 50% towards loss of future prospects, applied '17' multiplier, and awarded compensation of Rs.56,49,499.50 under the head of loss of dependency. In total, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.62,97,747.50 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. The Tribunal directed respondent No.2 to pay compensation to the claimants after deducting Rs.6,18,248/- and further granted liberty to respondent No.1- Corporation to recover the said amount from respondent No.2. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company, claimants and the Corporation are in appeal.
6. Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding exorbitant compensation to the claimants by assessing the age, avocation and income of the deceased contrary to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the deceased was working as an Engineer in KPIT Technologies Ltd. and drawing salary of Rs.35,186/- p.m. as per Ex.R3 and after deducting the permissible deductions, the Tribunal ought to have assessed his income at Rs.34,986/- p.m., added 50% towards future prospects and awarded the compensation.
7. It is further submitted that claimants have filed cross-objection contending that the deceased got an appointment at Infosys Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru with salary of Rs.1,80,000/- p.m. and sought to re-assess the income. The same cannot be considered as the deceased was not working at Infosys Software Co. Ltd., it was only the letter of appointment and as on the date of accident, he was not
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 drawing the said salary. In support of said submission, he refers to the admission of CW-2 that the deceased has not joined Infosys Software Co. Ltd.
8. It is also submitted that claimants are not entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- already received towards the Group Personal Accident Scheme from the employer, further more, claimants are also not entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- already received towards the death benefit from the employer and the Tribunal failed to appreciate these aspects which has resulted in passing of perverse order. It is further contended that the application filed by the claimants for production of additional documents is belated and that the claim petition was filed in the year 2016. The appeals and cross-objection were filed in the years 2020 and 2021. However, the application for production of document was filed in the year 2023 and those documents were very much available with the claimants. Hence, he seeks to reject I.A.No.1/2023 for production of additional evidence. It is also contended that the Tribunal has also committed error in reserving liberty to the Corporation to recover Rs.6,18,248/- from the Insurance Company. The said finding is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the appeal
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 filed by the Corporation itself is not maintainable under Section 173 of the Act, as they have not filed any claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:
i. Mrs.Helen C Rebello and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and another1 ii. Krishna Vs. Tek Chand2 iii. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram Jadhav3 iv. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shashi Sharma and others4 v. Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another5
9. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the Corporation has paid the medical expenses of the deceased to the tune of Rs.6,18,248/- as the claimants were not in a position to pay the said amount and get the dead body released from the hospital. The amount paid by the Corporation forms part of the award of the Tribunal and the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount to the Corporation directly instead of reserving 1 AIR 1998 SC 3191 2 Spl. Leave Petition (C) No.5044/2019 dt.05.02.24 3 First Appeal No.573/2013 dt. 19.12.2013 4 (2016) 9 SCC 627 5 (2009) 6 SCC 121
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 liberty to claim the said amount from the Insurance Company. She seeks to issue direction to the Insurance Company to remit the said amount to the Corporation and to the said extent only the appeal is filed by the Corporation.
10. Sri.Mahesh R.Uppin, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in considering the salary of the deceased as per Ex.R3 at Rs.4,45,498/- p.a. The Tribunal ought to have considered the salary at Rs.1,80,000/- p.m. as the deceased was about to join Infosys Software Co. Ltd. w.e.f 10.01.2016. In support of his contentions, he refers to the evidence of PW-1-father of the deceased, Exs.P21, P22 and evidence of CW-2. He seeks dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and to allow claimants' cross-objection and interim application. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:
i. Basanti Devi Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.6 ii. Gopayya and others Vs. Anand and another7 ii. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali and others8 6 AIR Online 2021 SC 1222 7 MFA No.202098/17 c/w MFA No.202019/17 dt. 21.08.18
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 iii. K.R.Madhusudhan and others Vs. Administrative Officer and another9 iv. Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others10 v. Sebastiani Lakra and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another11
11. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and examining the materials on record, the points that arise for determination are:
i. Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company?
ii. Whether I.A.No.1/2023 in MFA No.4824/2020 deserves to be allowed?
ANALYSIS Reg. Point Nos.1 and 2:
12. The undisputed facts are that when claimants' son Nilesh Nandakumar Aherrao was proceeding in KSRTC Airavata bus bearing registration No.KA-57/F-897 from Bengaluru to Mumbai, the same met with an accident near Chitradurga on NH-4, which resulted in he sustaining grievous injuries and 8 (2012) 12 SCC 198 9 (2011) 4 SCC 689 10 (2013) 7 SCC 476 11 (2019) 17 SCC 465
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 later succumbing to the same. The jurisdictional police filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal, considering the evidence available on record has recorded the finding that the driver of the bus was negligent and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the bus is liable to pay the compensation. The said finding of the Tribunal has attained finality. The dispute between the parties in the present proceedings is only with regard to the quantum of compensation.
13. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that at the time of accident deceased was aged about 26 years and just before the accident, he resigned from his employment of KPIT Technologies Ltd., Pune with an intention to join his new employment at Infosys Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru. Claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1. The oral evidence of PW-1 is nothing but reiteration of averments made in the claim petition. The evidence of PW-1 indicates that the deceased was highly qualified Software Engineer working in KPIT Technologies Ltd., Pune and he had issued notice of resignation to the said company in order to join Infosys Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru. PW-1 deposed that Infosys Software Co. Ltd. had offered the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 post of Associate Consultant to the deceased on salary of Rs.66,668/- p.m. with performance bonus upto 100%, guaranteed performance bonus upto 50%, ex gratia 20%, basket of allowances, national pension scheme and insurance coverage. Thus, total income of the deceased would be Rs.1,80,000/- p.m. The said witness has been cross-examined at length. However, nothing has been elicited to impeach his evidence with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased.
14. In support of the claim petition, claimants have produced the death certificate, degree certificate, recognition certificate and achievement records as per Exs.P11 to P17. Ex.P18 is the appointment letter issued by KPIT Technologies Ltd. which indicates his salary as Rs.2,16,155/- p.a. with other perks and benefits. Exs.P19 and P20 are the letter and ID card of the deceased issued by KPIT Technologies Ltd. Ex.P21 is the communication dated 27.11.2018 from Infosys Software Co. Ltd., Bengaluru to Ms.Swetha Aherrao which indicates that the deceased attended the interview of the said Company and appointment offer dated 19.11.2015 was issued to him for the post of Associate Consultant at their office at Pune which also
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 indicates his joining date as 29.02.2016. Ex.P22 is the appointment letter issued by Infosys Software Co. Ltd. which indicates the salary, performance bonus, guaranteed performance bonus, ex-gratia basket of allowances, national pension scheme and insurance coverage. The said documentary evidence indicates that the gross salary offered was Rs.66,668/- p.m., the maximum performance bonus of Rs.6,667/- p.m., guaranteed performance bonus at 50%, ex- gratia bonus at 20% of the sum of basic salary and dearness allowance, basket of allowances which includes house rent allowance, leave travel allowance, medical allowance, transport allowance, children's education allowance which would be paid as part of salary, national pension scheme, optional retirement benefit, Insurance and the employee will be eligible for Group Health Insurance scheme of different categories.
15. Ex.P22 corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and CW-
2. Claimants have examined Senior Associate Head (HR) of Infosys as CW-2. He deposed that Ex.P22 is the letter issued by Infosys Software Co. Ltd. to the deceased and it has offered the post of Associate Consultant in their Company directing him to report to duty on 29.02.2016. The said witness has been
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 cross-examined. In the cross-examination, CW-2 admitted that deceased had accepted the offer letter as per Ex.P21 and he was not the employee of Infosys Software Co. Ltd. in the month of December 2015 or in the month of January 2016. The oral evidence of PW-1, CW-2 and documentary evidence at Exs.P21 and P22 indicate that the deceased had accepted the employment of Infosys Software Co. Ltd. and was about to join the said Company. The evidence on record also indicates that the deceased had sent notice of resignation to his earlier employer i.e. KPIT Technologies Ltd., Pune with an intention to join Infosys Software Co. Ltd. and at the time of accident he was in notice period. It is admitted fact that the deceased was gainfully employed and drawing handsome salary from KPIT Technologies Ltd., Pune and he had resigned from the said job with an intention to join Infosys Software Co. Ltd. His employment in Infosys Software Co. Ltd. was secured and already right of employment in Infosys Software Co. Ltd. was accrued to the deceased at the time of his death in the road traffic accident that occurred on 28.12.2015. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the deceased had a job offer in his hand with salary of Rs.66,668/- p.m. with all perks as per
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 Ex.P22. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed fell in error in assessing the income of the deceased as per the salary paid by KPIT Technologies Ltd., Pune.
16. Taking note of the oral evidence of CW-2 and Exs.P21 and P22, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.66,668/- p.m. So far as entitlement of performance bonus, guaranteed performance bonus, ex-gratia bonus, basket of allowances, national pension scheme and insurance, the same cannot be considered as salary for the purpose of computation of compensation. Admittedly, the deceased did not join the employment at Infosys Software Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. The interest of justice would be met if we consider his salary as per Ex.P22 at Rs.66,668/- p.m. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.202098/2017 and connected matters disposed of on 21.08.2018 in similar circumstances at paragraph 6 considered the offer letter issued to the deceased and assessed the income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Basanti Devi referred to supra, has considered the income of the deceased who was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology notionally at Rs.20,000/- p.m. In the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 instant case, claimants have produced legally acceptable evidence with regard to the status of earning of the deceased at relevant time and the offer letter of Infosys Software Co. Ltd. and adduced oral evidence of the employer as CW-2. Hence, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.66,668/- p.m. Claimants have filed I.A.No.1/2023 for production of additional evidence. The additional evidence are the copies of e-mails received from Infosys Software Co. Ltd. The documents now produced have no much bearing in view of Exs.P21 and P22 and oral evidence of CW-2. Hence, I.A.No.1/2023 is liable to be rejected.
17. The contention of the Insurance Company that claimants are not entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- received towards the Group Personal Accident Scheme and death benefit from the employer, respectively, the said contention requires to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Sebastiani Lakra's case, referred to supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment held that there cannot be any deduction if the deceased or his legal heirs receive any benefits, amount, compensation towards insurance scheme,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 pensionary benefits, gratuity, grant of employment to the kin of deceased, death benefits, returns from the investment like bank deposits, shares and debentures. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the liability of the insurer is the contractual liability and they cannot seek deduction of amount from their liability. In view of the settled position of law referred to supra, the contention of the insurer with regard to deduction of compensation received under Group Insurance Scheme and the death benefit from the employer by the legal heirs of the deceased has no merit and is accordingly rejected.
18. The judgment in the case of Krishna referred to supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the said case, there were specific statutory rules with regard to payment of benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased by way of compassionate assistance owing to sudden death of employee in harness. The judgment in the case of Mrs.Helen C.Rebello, referred to supra was followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram Jadav and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Sharma and Others. But they were rendered prior to the judgment in Sebastiani Lakra referred to supra. The
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram Jadav referred to supra has been considered the decision of Helen C.Rebello referred to supra. However, the decision rendered by the larger Bench in the case of Sebastiani Lakra referred to supra was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Tukaram Jadav referred to supra. In view of the later larger bench judgment in the case of Sebastiani Lakra referred to supra, there cannot be any deductions from the entitlement of compensation amount by the legal heirs of the deceased on the ground that the employer has paid some compensation on the death of its employee.
19. Another contention of the Insurance Company that the appeal filed by the Corporation is not maintainable as they have not filed any claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Act requires to be rejected for the reason that Section 173 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an award of the Claims Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the High Court. The language employed in Section 173 of the Act is very clear and unambiguous. Hence, any person aggrieved
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 by the award of the Tribunal can maintain an appeal. The claim of KSRTC to refund Rs.6,18,248/- paid by it to the claimants towards the medical expenses is admitted by the claimants. In the instant case, admittedly the liability is on respondent No.2- Insurance Company. Hence, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable to make good the amount of Rs.6,18,248/- to KSRTC.
20. Having re-assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.66,668/- p.m., compensation under the head of loss of dependency requires to be re-assessed after deducting professional tax and income tax from the aforesaid amount. Having assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,00,016/- p.a., the appropriate deduction of income tax would be Rs.85,000/- as per the Finance Act, 2016 and the deduction towards professional tax would be Rs.2,400/- p.a. After deducting the income tax and professional tax, the net income would be Rs.7,12,616/- (8,00,016 - 85,000 - 2,400).
21. Claimants are entitled to addition of 50% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was a
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 bachelor. The appropriate deduction would be 50% of the assessed income towards his personal and living expenses and the appropriate multiplier would be 17. Hence, the compensation towards loss of dependency is reassessed as under:
Rs.7,12,616 + 50% (3,56,308) = Rs.10,68,924 - 50% (5,34,462) = 5,34,462 x 17 = Rs.90,85,854/-
22. Claimants are the parents of the deceased, they are entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- each with 10% escalation. Similarly, they are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses with 10% escalation as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others12 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram 13. Hence, claimants are entitled to compensation as under:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 90,85,854/-
2. Loss of consortium 88,000/-
12
2017 (16) SCC 680
13
2018 (18) SCC 130
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB
MFA.CROB No.19/2021
C/W MFA No.4824/2020
MFA No.6611/2021
3. Loss of estate 16,500/-
4. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
and transportation
of dead body
Total 92,06,854/-
Awarded by Tribunal 56,79,499.50
Enhanced compensation 35,27,354.50
The compensation amount carries interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
23. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following:
ORDER i. MFA No.4824/2020 and I.A.No.1/2023 in MFA No.4824/2020 are dismissed.
ii. MFA.Crob.No.19/2021 is allowed-in-part. iii. Claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.35,27,354.50 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
iv. MFA No.6611/2021 is allowed-in-part. Out of the compensation amount, KSRTC is entitled to Rs.6,18,248/-.
v. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.92,06,854/- before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1112-DB MFA.CROB No.19/2021 C/W MFA No.4824/2020 MFA No.6611/2021 vi. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release Rs.6,18,248/- to KSRTC and in balance amount, release 50% of the share of the claimants digitally and balance 50% shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank of the choice of the claimants for a period of three years.
vii. Registry shall refund the amount in deposit to KSRTC in MFA No.6611/2021.
viii. Transmit the Trial Court records and amount in deposit, if any to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2