Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jubedha Begum vs Sri Lokesh on 17 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.1832 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JUBEDHA BEGUM
W/O LATE ABDUL AJEEZ
@ AJEEZ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. SMT. PAHAMEEDHA
D/O LATE ABDUL AJEEZ
@ AJEEZ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
3. KUM SAHEEDHA BHANU
D/O LATE ABDUL AJEEZ
@ AJEEZ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
4. KUM. VAHEEDHA BHANU
D/O LATE ABDUL AJEEZ
@ AJEEZ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
5. SRI. MOHAMMED JABBAR
S/O LATE ABDUL AJEEZ
@ AJEEZ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
6. SRI. ILLIYAZ PASHA
@ MOHAMAD ILLIYAZ
S/O LATE ABDUL AJEEZ
2
@ AJEEZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT GHOUSIA MOHALLA BEEDI
MANBALLI, YELANDUR TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.RAJU S., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI LOKESH
S/O HONNAIAH
MAJOR,
KARIYAPANNADODDI VILLAGE
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-572159.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, RVR COMPLEX
OPPOSITE LIC OFFICE
BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA-562159
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:15.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.76/2016 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM,
MACT, RAMANAGARAM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) has been filed by the claimants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.06.2018 passed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM and MACT,
Ramanagaram in MVC No.76/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 26.01.2016 the deceased
Abdul Ajeez was driving the Car bearing Registration
No.KA-04-MC-5846 from Bengaluru towards Mamballi,
when he reached Dasapanadoddi, Bidadi Hobli,
Ramanagara Taluk, at that time, the driver of the
Transport vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-42-A-
699 drove the same in a very rash and negligent
manner endangering to human life in front of the said
Car and suddenly taken 'U' turn without any
indication. As a result of the same, the deceased who
was driving the Car behind the offending vehicle
dashed to the offending vehicle. Due to impact, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed
to the injuries.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of
the deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was
further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash
and negligent driving of the Car by the deceased
himself. Both deceased and the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on the
date of the accident. The liability is subject to terms
and conditions of the policy. The age, occupation and
income of the deceased are denied. It was further
pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by
the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was
placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to
prove their case, examined claimant No.3 as PW-1
and and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P7. On behalf of respondents, one witness was
examined as RW-1 but no document was exhibited on
their behalf. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned
judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place
on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which,
the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the
injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants
are entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,06,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed
the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this
appeal has been filed.
6. Sri S. Raju, learned counsel for the
claimants has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased
was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.60,000/- per month by
working as driver. But the Tribunal is not justified in
taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely
as Rs.9,000/-.
Secondly, as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND
OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased
was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of
25% of the established income towards 'future
prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased
was aged between 40-50 years. The same may be
considered.
Thirdly, since there are six dependents, the
Tribunal instead of deducting 1/4th of the income of
the deceased towards personal expenses, has
deducted 1/3rd.
Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ
2782], each of the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss
of love and affection and consortium'.
Lastly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower
side. Hence, he prays for enhancement of
compensation.
7. On the other hand, Smt. Geetha Raj,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised
the following counter-contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per month, the
same is not established by the claimants by producing
documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
Secondly, since the claimants have not
established the income of the deceased, they are not
entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
Thirdly, since claimant Nos.2 to 6 are the
married daughters and major sons of the deceased,
the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income
of the deceased towards personal expenses.
Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, she prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that Abdul Ajeez died in
the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimants claim that deceased was earning
Rs.60,000/- per month. But they have not produced
any documents to prove the income of the deceased.
In the absence of proof of income, the notional income
has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the
accident taken place in the year 2016, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,500/-
p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 25% has to be added
on account of future prospects in view of the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income
comes to Rs.11,875/-. Since claimant Nos.2 to 6 are
the married daughters and major sons of the
deceased, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of
the income of the deceased towards personal
expenses and thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.7,917/-. The deceased was aged about 50 years at
the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to
his age group is '13'. Thus, the claimants are entitled
to compensation of Rs.12,35,052/- (Rs.7,917*12*13)
on account of 'loss of dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of
estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account
of 'funeral expenses'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE'
(supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the
head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2 to
6, children of the deceased are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
'loss of parental consortium'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 12,35,052
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 2,00,000
consortium
Total 15,05,052
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.15,05,052/- as against
Rs.10,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
date of realization, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
In view of the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by
this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest
on the enhanced amount for the delayed period of 136
days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
