Karnataka High Court
Smt.Shahanjbi And Ors vs Sri Faridoddinm And Anr on 15 June, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA No.201211/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHAHANAJBI
W/O YASEEN PATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
2. SRI. HYDER S/O YASIN PATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. FARJANA D/O YASIN PATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
APPELLANTS 2 & 3 SINCE MINORS ARE
REP. BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER &
M/G THE 1ST APPELLANT)
ALL ARE R/O. YEVATI AND ALSO
RAM NAGAR, BIJAPUR-586101.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.S.MAMDAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. FARIDODDIN
MD. YUSUFODDIN KAZI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KAZI GALLI, MALDURG,
TQ: TULJAPUR, DIST: OSMANABAD,
MAHARASHTRA-413602
2
2. THE MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
LOCALLY REP. BY THE MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2016 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED MEMBER MACT-VII, VIJAYAPUR IN MVC
NO.111/2015
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Vijayapura ('Tribunal' for
short) in MVC No.111/2015, seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the trial
Court.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that, on
22.10.2014 at about 8.30 pm., the deceased Yasin, aged
about 41 years was proceeding on Hyderabad to Solapur road
on the motor bike. When he reached near Udgir Petrol Bunk,
the driver of the truck bearing registration No.KA.39/A.4917
drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motor cycle of the deceased. Because to this impact, the
deceased succumbed at the spot due to injuries sustained by
him. It is claimed that the deceased was doing agricultural
and building repair work and earning Rs.30,000/- per month
and the claimants have lost their bread-earner and hence,
they have claimed compensation of Rs.18.00 Lakhs on account
of untimely death of the deceased.
4. Respondent No.1-owner did not contest the
matter, while Respondent No.2-Insurer filed objections
denying the allegations and assertions made in the claim
petition. He denied the fact that the accident is because of
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
truck and contended that there is negligence on the part of
the deceased. He further denied the age, occupation and
income of the deceased and asserted that the driver of the
lorry was not possessing valid and effective driving licence.
Hence, Respondent No.2- Insurer has sought for dismissal of
this appeal.
5. The Tribunal after recording oral and
documentary evidence has awarded a total compensation of
Rs.7,42,000/- to the petitioners with interest at 6% pa., from
the date of petition till the date of realisation by fastening the
liability on both the Respondents No.1 & 2 jointly and
severally. Being dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for
Respondent No.2-Insurer. Perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the income taken by the Tribunal is on lower side. He
would also contend that, no proper compensation was
awarded under the head of Loss of Consortium. Hence, he
would seek for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondents would
support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
9. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is evident that the Tribunal has held that the
accident in question has occurred because of actionable
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck.
This finding was not at all challenged by the Insurance
Company. The liability of the Insurance Company is admitted.
The only issue for consideration is regarding quantum of
compensation.
10. The Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. However, though the
claimants asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/-
per month, there is no material evidence to substantiate the
said contention. The accident has occurred on 22.10.2014.
This Court has been consistently taking the notional income of
deceased persons at Rs.7,500/- pertaining to the accidents
occurred during the year 2014. Hence, the Tribunal has erred
in taking income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.
11. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in awarding
lesser compensation under the head of Loss of Consortium.
Admittedly, the age of the deceased is 41 years as on the
date of accident and as such, the multiplier '14' is applicable,
as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Further, in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others [(2017)
16 SCC 680], 25% of monthly income of the deceased is
required to be added to the income assessed for calculating
the compensation under the head of Loss of Future Prospects.
Hence, the monthly income of the deceased would be
Rs.9.375/- (Rs.7,500+Rs.1,875). Further, there are three
dependents to the deceased and as such, 1/3rd of income
(Rs.3,125/-) is required to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. Then the monthly income of the deceased works-
out to Rs.6,250/- (Rs.9,375 - 1/3=6250/-). Hence, the
amount under the head of Loss of Future Prospects would
work-out to Rs.10,50,000/- (Rs.6250x12x14).
12. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076
and in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimants being the widow and
children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each
under the head of Loss of Consortium, and as such, the
claimants are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3)
under this head.
13. Further, under the head of Loss of Estate, the
claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- and under the head of
Funeral Expenses, they are entitled for Rs.15,000/-.
14. In the facts and circumstances, the
appellants/claimants are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.12,00,000/- under the following heads:
Sl. Particulars Amount (RS.)
No.
1 Loss of Future 10,50,000/-
Prospects/Loss of
Dependency
2 Funeral expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of estate 15,000/-
4 Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
(Rs.40,000 x3)
Total 12,00,000/-
- Award of Tribunal - 7,42,000/-
Enhanced Compensation 4,58,000/-
15. Considering these facts and circumstances, the
appeal needs to be allowed-in-part. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The judgment and award dated 20.06.2016
passed by the MACT-VII, Vijayapura in MVC
No.111/2015, is modified.
iii. The appellants/claimants are held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- as against
Rs.7,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iv. The enhanced compensation of Rs.4,58,000/-
(Rs.12,00,000 - Rs.7,42,000) shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
its realisation.
v. Respondent No.2-Insurer is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation with interest accrued
thereon, within Six weeks from the date of this
judgment.
vi. The apportionment and deposit in respect of the
claimants shall be as per the order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*
