IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
M.F.A.No.4339/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. SAFIA ZUBAIR
W/O LATE SHEIKH ZUBER AHMED
AGED 47 YEARS
2. IIHAM SHEIKH
D/O LATE SHEIKH ZUBER AHMED
AGED 22 YEARS
3. MOHAMMED ANFAL
S/O LATE SHEIKH ZUBER
AGED 15 YEARS
4. IBTHI SAM SHEIKH
D/O LATE SHEIKH ZUBER
AGED 13 YEARS
APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 BEING MINORS
ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE
APPELLANT No.1.
ALL ARE R/AT FLAT No.202, 2ND FLOOR
TANWAM RESIDENCY
JEPPU-KUTHPADY ROAD
MARNAMIKATTE
MANGALURU-575002. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.R.GURUPRASAD, ADV.)
-2-
AND :
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
P.B.No.123, CHANNAGIRI ROAD
BHADRAVATHI-577301.
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. R.GIRISH
S/O D.B.LINGARAJU
AGED 46 YEARS
R/AT DANAPPA NILAYA
NMC MAIN ROAD
BHADRAVATHI-577301
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R-1;
V/O. DATED 08.01.2021, NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.504/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
M.A.C.T., AND III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 02.03.2017 passed in MVC No.504/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangaluru, D.K. ['Tribunal' for short].
-3-
2. The claimants being the widow and children of the deceased Sheikh Zuber Ahmed instituted the petition under Section 166 of the motor vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Sheikh Zuber Ahmed in the road traffic accident.
3. It was averred in the claim petition that on 12.05.2012 at about 09.10 p.m., when the deceased along with others were proceeding from Shivamogga towards Bengaluru in Wagon R car bearing registration No.KA-19-N-4533 near Ache-Chomanahalli Gate, NH- 206, a lorry bearing No.KA-14-A-0892 [offending vehicle] came from Kadur side in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the car. Due to the said impact, the occupants of the car sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot itself. The deceased, an occupant was shifted Kadur Government Hospital wherein he was declared as brought dead. -4-
4. It was contended that the deceased was aged about 48 years and working as an Engineer with M/s. Eco Soft Water Technology, Bengaluru and drawing salary of Rs.18,000/- p.m. The entire family members were depending on the income of the deceased for their livelihood. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have lost the sole bread earning member of the family and are suffering from mental agony, loss of dependency, loss of love and affection etc.,
5. It was further contended that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which was duly insured with the second respondent - insurer. Accordingly, prayed for awarding the compensation with interest.
6. After service of notice, both the respondents appeared and filed written statement. The respondent No.1 denying the petition averments contended that the offending vehicle was loaded with gas cylinders, it was -5- driven by one Premprakash who had a valid license to transport explosives. He had unloaded the gas cylinders at Sira, Tumkur District. After that, he was compelled to leave to his native place due to emergency leaving behind the vehicle at Sira only. Then, this respondent had sent one Shreedara to get the empty vehicle from Sira who had licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. The claim made by the petitioners was challenged as exorbitant and baseless. The accident took place on account of the deceased himself owing to his own negligence for which this respondent is not responsible.
7. The respondent No.2 - insurer contested the claim taking the defence that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident; the compensation claimed was highly exorbitant, arbitrary and baseless; the deceased -6- was guilty of major contributory negligence. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed by the Tribunal and answered in terms of the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, awarding total compensation of Rs.20,49,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realization.
9. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager. The monthly income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal at Rs.18,000/- p.m., is on the lower side. The compensation awarded under the different heads is meager. No future prospects has been -7- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, sought for enhancement of the compensation.
11. Learned counsel for the insurer justifying the impugned judgment and award submitted that on appreciation of ocular and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. It is discernable from Ex.P9 that the deceased was working as an Engineer with M/s. Eco Soft Water Technology, Bengaluru and drawing salary of Rs.18,000/- p.m. The finding recorded by the Tribunal based on the ocular and documentary evidence -8- regarding monthly salary drawn by the deceased cannot be faulted with. However, 40% of the same requires to be added towards future prospects in terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC 680). Adding the same towards the future prospects, the total income would be Rs.25,200/. Deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, applying the multiplier of 13, loss of dependency would work out to Rs.26,32,500/- [22,500 x 12 x 13 x ¾].
14. In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi supra and New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Somwati And Others [(2020) 9 SCC 644], the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- under the conventional heads viz., Rs.1,20,000/- towards Parental consortium [Rs.40,000/- to each child]; Rs.40,000/- towards spousal -9- consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:
Amount [in Sl.No. Particulars Rs.]
1. Loss of dependency 26,32,500/-
Loss of Parental Consortium
2. 1,20,000/-
[Rs.40,000/- to each child]
3. Loss of spousal Consortium 40,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
5. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 28,22,500/-
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.28,22,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
16. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
- 10 -
ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.28,22,500/- as against Rs.20,49,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization subject to clause (iii).
iii) The claimants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 352 days caused in filing the appeal before this Court in terms of the order of this Court dated 08.01.2021.
iv) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.
v) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
- 11 -
vi) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vii) Draw modified award accordingly.
viii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
ix) All pending I.As stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NC.