Silanabi @ Silan Begum W/O Md. ... vs The Depot Manager/Legal Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 4087 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

               MFA No.200594/2021 (MV)
Between:
1.     Silanabi @ Silan Begum W/o Md. Munnu Miya,
       Age: 39 Years, Occ: Household,

2.     Mohammed Waseem S/o Munnu Miya,
       Age: 20 Years, Occ: Nil,

3.     Yasmeen Begum D/o Munnu Miya,
       Age: 18 Years, Occ: Nil,

4.     Mohammed Sameer S/o Munnu Miya,
       Age: 17 Years, Occ: Nil,

5.     Mahween Begum D/o Munnu Miya,
       Age: 13 Years, Occ: Nil,

       The appellant No.4 and 5 are minors
       U/G of their natural mother appellant No.1.

       All are R/o H.No.236, Near Panchayath Office,
       Malkapur, Tq. & Dist: Bidar.
                                            ... Appellants
(By Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil, Advocate)
And:
The Depot Manager / Legal Officer,
T.S.R.T.C, Zaheerabad Bus Depot,
Zaheerabad, Dist: Sangareddy-502220
                                            ... Respondent
(By Sri.S.V.Deshmukh, Advocate)
                              2




     This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the MV Act praying to allow the appeal, the
judgment and dated 31.07.2019 in MVC No.322/2018
passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl.
MACT Bidar, may kindly be modified by enhancing the
compensation, in the interest of justice and equity.

      This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-


                      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 appellants-petitioners

being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

31.07.2019 passed in MVC No. 322/2018 by the Addl.

MACT & Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM at Bidar,

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Claims

Tribunal. Appellants are petitioners, respondent is

respondent before the Tribunal.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that the deceased Md.Munnu Miya

S/o; Usman sab was proceeding from Hyderabad to

Bidar in auto bearing registration No.TS-35/T-1101 on

20.04.2018. The driver of the said auto was driving

the said vehicle very slowly and cautiously on the left

side of the main road and at about 4.50 p.m., when it

came near NH-65, By-pass road, outskirts of Sadashiv

Nagar town, at that time, one APSRTC bus bearing

registration No.AP-28/Z-4912 came from Sadashiv

Nagar in a wrong side and the said bus was driven by

its driver in a rash and negligent manner, in high

speed and zig-zag manner and dashed against the

said auto bearing registration No.TS-35/T-1101, due

to which the inmate of auto i.e. Munnu miya sustained

grievous injuries over his head and died on the spot.

Petitioners being legal representatives of deceased

Md.Munnu miya were completely depending on the

income of deceased. Now, due to untimely death of

deceased, the petitioners are facing greater hardship.

It is contended that the accident was occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle. The petitioners filed a claim petition

under Section 166 of M.V.Act, seeking for

compensation due to untimely death of deceased

Md.Munnu miya in the road traffic accident.

4. Though notice was issued to respondent

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 Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. In order to prove the claim

petition, petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1 and got

marked documents Exs.P1 to P9. After recording the

evidence and considering the material on record, the

Tribunal held that the petitioners have proved that

deceased Md.Munnu Miya who died in the motor

vehicle accident, that occurred on 20.04.2018 at

about 4.50 p.m. on Bidar-Hyderabad road, by-pass,

outskirts of Sadashiv Nagar town, on account of the

rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing

registration No.AP-28/Z-4912, by its driver and

further held that the petitioners are entitled for

compensation and consequently allowed the claim

petition and awarded compensation of Rs.13,30,000/-

with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of

petition till its deposit. Being dissatisfied with the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners

have filed the present appeal seeking for

enhancement of compensation amount.

       6.      Heard        the   learned          counsel     for   the

petitioners         and    learned       counsel    for     respondent-

Corporation.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that deceased was a servant in the bakery and getting

salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, he submits

that the tribunal has assessed the notional income at

Rs.8,000/-. He submits that in the absence of income

of proof, the tribunal ought to have taken the notional

income as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority, the notional income is

to be taken at Rs.11,750/-. He submits that the

tribunal has awarded lesser compensation. Hence, on

these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent-Corporation supports the impugned

judgment and award passed by the tribunal.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

10. The only point that arise for consideration

is with regard to quantum of compensation.

11. It is not in dispute that deceased

Md.Munnu Miya died in the road traffic accident

occurred on 20.04.2018 due to rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. In order

to establish that the accident was occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle, the petitioners have produced copy

of FIR and charge sheet, marked at Exs.P1 and P3.

Ex.P3, discloses that the accident was occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle. The tribunal was justified in

recording a finding that the accident was occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle. Insofar as quantum of

compensation is concerned, the deceased was aged

42 years as on the date of the accident. It is

contended that the deceased was working as servant

in bakery and getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-.

In support of the contention, the petitioners have not

produced any income proof. The tribunal has taken

notional income of Rs.8,000/- and added 25% added

on account of future prospects it comes to

Rs.10,000/- per month.

12. In the absence of any evidence or proof of

income, the notional income has to be assessed as per

the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place

in the year 2018, the notional income has to be taken

at Rs.11,750/- p.m. as per chart. In view of the law

laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme

Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Pranay

Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, to

the aforesaid amount, 25% has to be added on

account of future prospects as the deceased was aged

about 42 years. Thus, the monthly income comes to

Rs.14,687/-. Out of which, it is appropriate to deduct

1/4th towards personal expenses and therefore, the

monthly income comes to Rs.11,015/-.

13. As on the date of the accident, the

deceased was aged 42 years, as per the decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA

(SMT) & OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT

CORPORATION & ANOTHER, reported in (2009) 6

SCC 121, the multiplier applied to the age group of

the appellant is 14. Taking into account the age of the

deceased which was 42 years at the time of accident,

multiplier of 14 has to be adopted and therefore, the

claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.18,50,520/-

(1,32,180/- x 14) on account of loss of dependency as

against Rs.12,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

14. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to

compensation of Rs.18,50,520/- on account of 'loss of

dependency'.

15. In addition, the petitioners are entitled to

Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and

Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.

16. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru

Ram & Others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, each of

the claimants are entitled for compensation of

Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of consortium',

which comes to Rs.2,00,000/-.

17. Thus the claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.20,80,520/- as against

Rs.13,30,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Hence, the

petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation of

Rs.7,50,520/-.

18. In view of the above discussions, the appeal

is allowed in part.

(a) The petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.20,80,520/- as against Rs.13,30,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

      (b)   The   petitioners       are     entitled   for
            enhanced        compensation        of     Rs.

7,50,520/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization of amount.

      (c)   Respondent             No.2,       Insurance
            Company is directed to deposit the
            enhanced        compensation         amount

along with interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr