Karnataka High Court
Ravindra N. Nayak vs Abusaleha Moulasab Hullatti on 19 January, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
M.F.A. No. 103755/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. RAVINDRA N. NAYAK
S/O NAGESH NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRINCIPAL, MES COMMERCE
COLLEGE, SIRSI
R/O: AYYAPPA NAGARA
SIRSI (N.K.)-581 401.
(HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED)
2. R.N. MANISH
S/O RAVINDRA N NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O AYYAPPA NAGARA
SIRSI (N.K.)-581401.
(SON OF THE DECEASED)
3. R.N. DEVARAJ
S/O RAVINDRA N NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
STUDENT, R/O AYYAPPA NAGARA
SIRSI (N.K.)-581401.
(SON OF THE DECEASED)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.V.VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. ABUSALEHA MOULASAB HULLATTI
S/O MOULASAB HULLATTI
MAJOR, R/O BHADRAPUR, PALA
MUNDGOD (N.K.)-581349
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
REG. NO.KA-30-A-809)
2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
E-8, EPIP, SITAPURA INDUSTRIEAL AREA
JIAPUR, RAJASTHAN-302622
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONLA MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.311/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SIRSI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
HEARING INTERLOCATURY APPLICATION THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants-appellants are before this Court not
being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
under the judgment and award dated 17.12.2018 passed in
M.V.C. No.311/2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil
Judge and Addl.MACT, Sirsi (hereinafter referred as
'Tribunal', for short) and praying for enhancement of
compensation.
2. The appellants are the wife and children of
deceased Mamata Ravindra Nayak, filed claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming
compensation for the death of Mamata Ravindra Nayak in a
road traffic accident that had occurred on 11.05.2016,
involving Car bearing Regn.No.KA-27-M-4240 and Lorry
bearing No.KA-30-A-809. It is stated that the deceased was
working as lecturer in Government aided college and was
drawing a monthly salary of Rs.35,916/- and was aged 48
years as on the date of accident. Before the Tribunal the
claimants examined PW1 and PW2, apart from marking
Exs.P1 to P10, whereas respondent-insurance company
marked Exs.R1 to 5.
3. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials on
record, awarded total compensation of Rs.35,54,810/- on
the following heads with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum.
Towards Loss of dependency ` 33,84,810.00
Towards love and affection ` 1,00,000.00
Towards loss of consortium ` 40,000.00
Towards funeral expenses ` 15,000.00
Towards loss of estate ` 15,000.00
Total ` 35,54,810.00
While awarding the amount of compensation, the
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.34,716/-, added 25% of the assessed income towards
future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses
and adopted multiplier of '13'.
4. We have heard Smt.Vidya Iyer, learned counsel
for the appellants-claimants and Sri Nagaraj C. Kolloori,
learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
Perused the appeal papers including the trial Court records.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that the appellants would not dispute assessment of income
by the Tribunal at Rs.34,716/- and the multiplier of 13
adopted by the Tribunal. It is contended that the Tribunal
committed an error in deducting 50% towards personal
expenses of the deceased, since the dependants are
husband and children of the deceased. Learned counsel
referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Another1, would submit that wherever the deceased
was a married person, the deduction would be 1/3rd and
below depending upon the dependants. In the present case,
as there are three dependants 1/3rd is to be deducted.
Further, learned counsel would submit that the deceased
was working as a lecturer in a Government Aided college
and she was having permanent job. Therefore, as per the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
(AIR 2009 SC 3104)
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, the
claimants would be entitled for adding 30% of the assessed
income towards future prospects. It is submitted that the
Tribunal committed an error in adding only 25% of the
assessed income towards future prospects. Thus, she prays
for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal is justified in
deducting 50% of the assessed income towards personal
expenses of the deceased since the husband is also working
as Principal in the Government college. The claimant No.1-
husband is also earning and was not a dependant on the
deceased-wife. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal
is right in deducting 50% of the assessed income towards
personal expenses. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. The accident that had taken place on 11.05.2016
and the accidental death of one Mamata Ravindra Nayak,
involving Car bearing Regn.No.KA-27-M-4240 and Lorry
bearing No.KA-30-A-809 is not in dispute in this appeal and
the claimants are before this Court praying for
enhancement of compensation.
8. There is no dispute that the deceased was
working as a lecturer in the Government Aided College at
Sirsi. The deceased was having a permanent Government
job. In view of the principles laid down in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), wherever the deceased was having
permanent Government job, the claimants would be
entitled for adding 30% of the assessed income towards
future prospects wherever the deceased was aged between
40 to 50 years. Thus, we hold that the claimants would be
entitled for adding 30% of the assessed income towards
future prospects as against 25% awarded by the Tribunal,
as the deceased was aged 48 years.
9. The claimants are the husband and children of
the deceased. There are three dependants as could be
seen. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
(supra) has made it clear that, 50% deduction towards
personal expenses could be made wherever deceased is
unmarried. If the deceased is married, the deduction would
be less than 50% depending on the dependants of the
deceased. Assuming in the present case, if the husband-1st
claimant is working, the deceased had two children, hence
1/3rd deduction would be proper. Thus, we are of the
opinion that the Tribunal committed an error in deducting
50% of the assessed income towards personal expenses of
the deceased. Thus, we hold that the claimants would be
entitled for deduction of 1/3rd of the assessed income
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
10. The multiplier of '13' taken by the Tribunal is
proper. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra) has held that the spouse would be entitled
for Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and would be
entitled for 15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses.
The claimants No.2 and 3 i.e. children of the deceased
would be entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-
each as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Magma (supra). Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
the following modified compensation;
Loss of dependency
Rs.34,716 + 30% = Rs.45,130.
(45,130-15,043(1/3rd)=Rs.30,087/-.) `46,93,572.00
Rs.30,087 x 12 x 13 = Rs.46,93,572/-
Funeral expense and loss of estate `30,000.00
Loss of consortium `1,20,000.00
(40,000 x 3)
Total `48,43,572.00
Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.48,43,572/- as against
Rs.35,54,480/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has granted interest at 7% p.a. However,
taking note of the bank interest rate at present, we deem it
appropriate to award interest at 6% p.a. on the
compensation amount from the date of petition till
realization.
In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and
the judgment and award of the Tribunal stands modified to
the above extent.
The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be
as ordered by the Tribunal in the same proportion.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
am
