Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajiya Begum And Ors vs Stm Padma And Anr on 6 January, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1 MFA No.201312/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA NO 201312/2021 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. RAJIYA BEGUM
W/O MOHAMMAD RAFIQ BAGAWAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSHOLD WORK,
2. SANIYA BEGUM
D/O MOHAMMAD RAFIQ BAGAWAN
SINCE MINOR IS REP. BY HER
NATURAL MOTHER AND M/G
THE APPELLANT NO.1
3. SRI MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
S/O MODINSAB BAGAWAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC COOLIE,
ALL ARE R/O JERATAGI VILLAGE,
TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. PADMA W/O SHARANAPPA JANJI
AGE MAJOR, OCC BUSINESS,
R/O 16/7 WADI 585 225
TQ CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
2 MFA No.201312/2021
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SERVICE BRANCH OFFICE,
DOOR NO. 3 PLOT NO. 40
MAHANTH ARCADE MAHANTESH NAGAR,
KALABURAGI 585101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 D/W V/O DTD 16.03.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO
ENAHNCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, JEWARGI
IN MVC NO.626/2019.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellants who are claimants before the Tribunal have
come up this appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation granted for the death of one Moheen S/o
Mohammad Rafiq in a motor vehicles accident dated
11.10.2018. The appellants are the mother, father and
sister of the deceased.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that on
11.10.2018 deceased along with others was standing on the
payment in front of Jeratagi bus stand in order to go to
Jewargi. At about 7:45 pm a tanker lorry bearing Reg.
No.KA-01-AD-8022 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending
vehicle' for short), driven by its driver in a rash or negligent
manner came from Sindagi side and dashed against the
deceased. He sustained grievous injuries and died while
being shifted to the hospital. At the time of accident,
deceased was aged 20 years. He was earning Rs.50,000/-
per month by doing hotel business. As a mother, father and
sister, petitioners were dependent on him. As the owner
and insurer of the offending vehicle respondents are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation.
4. Respondents appeared and filed separate written
statement denying the age, occupation and income of the
deceased and that petitioners were dependent on him. They
have also disputed that accident occurred due to rash or
negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2
admit coverage of the vehicle, but, contended that at the
time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was
not holding a valid driving licence and as such it is not liable
to pay the compensation.
5. Based on these pleadings, the Tribunal has
framed the necessary issues.
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners,
PW.1 is examined and got marked ExsP.1 to 6.
7. Respondents have not led any oral or
documentary evidence.
8. Vide impugned judgment and award the Tribunal
has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.8,26,000/- as
detailed below:
Sl.No. Compensation head Amount
awarded
1. Loss of dependency/estate Rs.7,56,000/-
(Rs.45,000/- x 18
(multiplier) = Rs.7,56,000/-
2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection Rs.40,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.8,26,000/-
9. Not being satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the petitioners are before this Court
contending that the compensation granted under all the
heads is on the lower side. No compensation is granted
towards loss of future prospects. Even in the absence of
evidence to prove the exact income of the deceased, the
notional income ought to have been taken at Rs.11,750/-
based on minimum wages and Rs.7,000/- taken by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Loss of consortium is also
required to be enhanced to Rs.80,000/- as against
Rs.40,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondents supported the impugned judgment and award
and prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. Heard arguments and perused the record.
12. In the light of the specific defence taken by the
petitioners it is necessary to examine whether the
compensation granted by the Tribunal under the following
various heads is just and reasonable or calls for any
interference by this Court under the following various
heads.
13. Loss of dependency: The relationship between
the petitioners and the deceased is not in disputed. The
petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are the parents, and petitioner No.2
is the sister of the deceased. According to the petitioners,
the age of the deceased was 20 years. Based on the post
mortem report , the Tribunal has accepted the age of the
deceased as 20 years. Though petitioners claim that he was
doing hotel business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month,
they have not produced any evidence to establish the said
fact. Therefore the Tribunal has considered his income on
notional basis. However, it has taken the income of the
deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. Since the accident
occurred in the year 2018, based on minimum wages
atleast it should have been taken as Rs.11,750/-. Having
regard to the age of the deceased, the multiplier taken at
'18' is correct.
13.1 However, the Tribunal has not grated any
compensation under the head loss of future prospects. As
per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram
Alias Chuhru Ram And Others1 (Magma Insurance
Company case) 40% of his income is required to be added
towards loss of future prospects. 40% of Rs.11,750/-
comes to Rs.4,700/-. Therefore, the notional income of
deceased is required to be taken at Rs.16,450/-. Since
deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income is required to
be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and
remaining 50% is required to be taken into consideration
for calculating loss of dependency. With these components
the compensation under the head loss of dependency
comes to Rs.16,450/-x12x18x50%=Rs.17,76,600/- as
against Rs.7,56,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
14. Loss of consortium: As the parents, petitioner
Nos.1 and 3 are entitled for compensation in a sum of
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental
consortium. However, the Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss
of love and affection. Therefore, the compensation in a sum
of Rs.80,000/- is granted under the head of loss of
consortium and the compensation granted in a sum of
Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of love and affection is
disallowed.
15. Loss to estate and funeral expenses: When
substantial compensation is granted under the head loss of
dependency, under the conventional heads loss to estate
and funeral expenses (which includes transportation
charges), a fixed amount of Rs.15,000/- each is required
to be granted. The Tribunal has correctly granted
compensation and it requires no interference.
16. Thus in all petitioners are entitled for total
compensation Rs.18,86,600/- as against Rs.8,26,000/-
granted by the Tribunal as detailed below:
Sl. Heads Amount Amount
No. awarded by awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/- Rs.17,76,600/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/-
3. Loss to estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.8,26,000/- Rs.18,86,600/-
17. Accordingly, to this extent the order of the
Tribunal is required to be modified and accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Appellants/petitioners are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.18,86,600/-
together with interest at 6% per annum as
against Rs.8,26,000/- granted by the
Tribunal.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the
compensation together with accrued
interest at 6% (minus the compensation
already paid/deposited) within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) The order of Tribunal regarding deposit,
payment and apportionment holds good for
the enhanced compensation also.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sdu
