Karnataka High Court
Anithamma vs Saleem Pasha on 5 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH 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.667/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. ANITHAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA
@ RAMKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
2. VEERENDRA
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA
@ RAMKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
3. NANDINI
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA
@ RAMKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.
4. YANKAMMA
W/O PATHANNA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
APPELLANT No.3 IS MINOR
REP BY MOTHER APPELLANT No.1
R/AT C/O SRINIVASA KUMAR,
S/O SHIVANNA,
RAGHUNATHARAO BUILDING,
NEAR STADIUM, REDDY COLONY,
-2-
PAVAGADA TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADV.)
AND :
1. SALEEM PASHA
S/O ZIYAULLA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT SIDDANAYAKAGALLI ROAD,
1ST CROSS, MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 122
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
TD BHAVAN MISSION,1ST FLOOR,
EAST-WING, NO.28,
CENTANIARY BUILDING,
3RD CROSS, M.G. ROAD,
UCO BANK, GENARAL KARYAPPA,
TUMKUR-572 122
REP BY ITS MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.SHANKARA REDDY, ADV. FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENDSED WITH.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.69/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & MACT, PAVAGADA, 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 25.05.2017 passed in MVC No.69/2015 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Pavagada ('Tribunal' for short).
2. The claimants have preferred petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
compensation for the death of Ramakrishna.
3. Claimants are the widow, children and the
mother of the deceased. It was averred in the claim
petition that on 12.08.2014 at about 8.30 a.m. when
the deceased along with his wife and brother were
traveling in a MAG bus bearing registration No.KA-16-
D-7374 (offending vehicle) from Rapte as paid
passengers in order to reach Vallur, the deceased fell
down from the bus while getting down since the bus
was moved in a rash and negligent manner by the driver
of the bus. He sustained grievous injuries and
immediately he was shifted to Government General
Hospital, Pavagada and thereafter to NIMHANS Hospital
at Bengaluru and further on the advice of the doctor at
the NIMHANS Hospital, he was shifted to Pavagada
General Hospital. However, he succumbed to the
grievous injuries on 27.09.2014 at about 4.00 p.m.
while taking treatment as an inpatient at Pavagada
General Hospital.
4. It was contended that the deceased was
doing Sheep raring business besides the tailoring and
agricultural work and earning more than Rs.30,000/-
per month and was contributing the same for the
maintenance of the family. The untimely death of the
deceased has caused mental agony and loss of
dependency etc., On these set of facts and grounds, the
claimants sought for the compensation.
5. In response to the summons issued by the
Tribunal, the respondents appeared through their
respective counsel and filed written statements denying
the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle. The defence set up was that the deceased -
Ramakrishna made an attempt to get down from the
moving bus before stopping. It is only due to the sole
negligence of the deceased - Ramakrishna, he sustained
injuries.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were
framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the
impugned judgment partly allowing the petition
awarding compensation of Rs.12,42,900/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
petition till its realisation.
7. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants
have preferred the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has
determined the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.5,000/-, which is not in conformity with the evidence
available on record. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just
and proper compensation. It was submitted that the
compensation requires to be enhanced substantially.
9. Learned counsel for the insurer supporting
the impugned judgment and award submitted that on
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable
compensation. The same deserves to be confirmed
dismissing the appeal.
10. We have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
11. The factum of accident and the death of the
deceased - Ramakrishna are not in dispute. The
fulcrum of dispute revolves around the determination of
the income made notionally by the Tribunal. It is settled
that in the absence of proof of income, this Court is
consistently referring to the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for
determining the income of the victim in the road traffic
accident notionally. Referring to the same, the monthly
income of the deceased requires to be re-determined.
Thus, we deem it appropriate to re-determine the
income at Rs.8,500/ per month. Adding 25% towards
future prospects since the deceased was aged about 47
years at the time of the accident, the total income would
be Rs.10,625/-. Applying the multiplier of '13' and
deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased, the loss of dependency would work out to
Rs.12,43,125/- (10,625 x 12 x 13 x ¾).
12. Medical expenses of Rs.10,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal remains intact.
13. In terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)16 SCC
680 and New India Assurance Company Limited v/s.
Somwati and others reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE
SC 720, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of spousal consortium; Rs.80,000/-
towards loss of parental consortium (Rs.40,000/- to
each minor child); Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial
consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, the total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed
as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.]
1. Loss of dependency 12,43,125/-
Loss of spousal
2. 40,000/-
consortium
Loss of parental
3. consortium (Rs.40,000/- 80,000/-
to each minor child)
4. Loss of filial consortium 40,000/-
5. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Towards funeral
6. 15,000/-
expenses
7. Medical expenses 10,000/-
Total 14,43,125/-
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.14,43,125/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition
till the date of realization.
15. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
Rs.14,43,125/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs
Forty Three Thousand One Hundred and
Twenty Five only) as against
Rs.12,42,900/- with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of the
claim petition till its realization.
iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal
inasmuch as liability, apportionment and
disbursement remains intact.
- 10 -
iv) 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.
v) The modified compensation amount shall
be apportioned and disbursed in terms of
the order of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
vii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
