Mohamma Shammer vs Shambulinga @ Shambuling Ramappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 2535 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.100767/2017(MV)
BETWEEN:

1.     MOHAMMA SHAMMER
       S/O NABISAB @ ABDUL NABISAB,
       AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COURIER SERVICE,
       R/O: 11TH WARD, H.NO.11 REDDY STREET,
       KULUMI CHOCK, BALLARI.

2.     MOHAMMA YUNUS
       S/O NABISAB @ ABDUL NABISAB,
       AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: GUJARI BUSINESS,
       R/O: 11TH WARD, H.NO.11 REDDY STREET,
       KULUMI CHOCK, BALLARI.

3.     NOOR MOHAMMED
       S/O NABISAB @ ABDUL NABISAB,
       AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PLASTIC BUSINESS,
       R/O: 11TH WARD, H.NO.11 REDDY STREET,
       KULUMI CHOCK, BALLARI

4.     MOHAMMED ASIEF
       S/O NABISAB @ ABDUL NABISAB,
       AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PLASTIC PLATE BUSINESS,
       R/O: 11TH WARD, H.NO.11 REDDY STREET,
       KULUMI CHOCK, BALLARI

5.     GOUSIA BEGAUM
       S/O NABISAB @ ABDUL NABISAB,
       AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PLASTIC BUSINESS,
       R/O: 11TH WARD, H.NO.11 REDDY STREET,
       KULUMI CHOCK, BALLARI
                                                 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B. C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)
                                   2




AND:

1.     SHAMBULINGA @ SHAMBULING RAMAPURA
       S/O YELLAPPA, AGE: 34 YEARS,
       OCC: DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS,
       BEARING NO.KA-34/F-740,
       R/O: DEVINAGAR 1ST CROSS,
       MARATAGALLI, BALLARI.

2.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       N.E.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICER
       GULBARGA (BALLARI DIVISION)
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
     R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
                               ---


     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.803/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR   COMPENSATION      AND   SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT    OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

The instant appeal is filed by the claimants

being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the MACT-XII, Ballari (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC

No.803/2014 vide its judgment and award dated

23.07.2015.

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission,

with the consent of learned counsel appearing on

both sides, the same is taken up for final disposal.

3. The parties to this appeal are referred to by

their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal

for the sake of convenience.

4. The undisputed facts of the case are that;

On 27.04.2014, the offending KSRTC bus

bearing registration No.KA-34/F-740 driven in a rash

and negligent manner, dashed against the TVS

Scooty motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/V-

9321, in which the deceased Nabi Sab @ Abdul

Nabisab, the father of the claimants herein, was

traveling, and caused the accident. In the said

accident, Nabisab had suffered grievous injuries and

though he was admitted in the hospital, he

succumbed to the injuries on 28.04.2014. It is under

these circumstances, the claimants had filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

claiming compensation from the respondents, towards

the death of their father deceased Nabisab.

The said claim petition was partly allowed by the

Tribunal and a compensation of `5,76,480/- was

awarded to the claimants with interest at 7% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before

this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits

that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the

notional income of the deceased at `4,500/- per

month, which is on the lower side. He submits that,

even under the conventional heads, the claimants are

entitled for higher compensation and accordingly,

prays to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the 2 n d respondent - owner-cum-Insurer has argued

in support of the impugned judgment and award and

submits that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference

and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.

7. I have carefully considered the rival

arguments and also perused the material on record.

8. The only question that arises for

consideration in this appeal is with regard to the

adequacy of the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal to the claimants. The deceased was the

father of the claimants. The claimants No.1 to 4 are

all major sons of the deceased and they are all

having their own business, as could be evident from

the cause title of the petition. The 5 t h claimant is the

unmarried daughter of the deceased and she is said

to be a student. Though the Tribunal had considered

the age of the deceased as 54 years as on the date of

accident on the basis of the post-mortem report,

having regard to the age of the 1 s t claimant as found

in the Aadhar card and also in the affidavit filed in

lieu of examination-in-chief, it would go to show that,

as on the date of the accident, the 1 s t claimant was

aged about 38 years, the age of the deceased cannot

be considered as 54 years and therefore, it is taken

at 60 years as on the date of accident. In the said

event, the proper multiplier applicable would be 9.

Having regard to the year of accident, in view of the

income chart maintained by the Karnataka State

Legal Service Authority for the purpose of disposal of

motor vehicle accident cases, the notional income of

the deceased is required to be taken at `7,500/- per

month and 10% of the said income is to be

considered towards loss of future prospects. Out of

the total income, since only the 5th claimant is

considered to be the dependent of deceased, 1/3 r d is

required to be deducted towards his personal

expenses. In the said event, the claimants would be

entitled for a total compensation of ` 5,94,000/-

(`5,500 x 12 x 9) towards 'loss of dependency'.

Towards 'loss of filial love and affection' the

claimants are entitled for a sum of `40,000/- each

and towards 'funeral expenses and loss of estate',

the claimants are together entitled for a sum of

`30,000/-. Therefore, in all the claimants are

entitled for a sum of ` 2,30,000/- under the

conventional heads.

9. Therefore, totally the claimants are entitled

for a compensation of `8,24,000/- as against

`5,76,840/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced

amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6%

p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

However, the claimants are not entitled for interest

for 459 days being the period of delay caused in

filing the appeal, as per the order dated 16.02.2022.

Since the liability is not in dispute, the 2nd

respondent, who is the owner-cum-Insurer of the

offending bus, is directed to deposit the enhanced

amount of compensation with interest before the

Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date

of receipt of certified copy of this order. The order

passed by the Tribunal insofar as it relates to

apportionment, deposit and disbursement etc.,

remains unaltered.

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab