Karnataka High Court
M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Smt Aburaj Begum on 10 January, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.8204/2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN
M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO.186/7, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX
WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560027
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. ABURAJ BEGUM
S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
2. MASTER MOHAMMED AAHIL
S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 02 YEARS
3. SMT. ALIMA BEGUM
W/O MOHAMMED ALI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS A MINOR
REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1-
ABURUJ BEGUM
2
ALL ARE R/A NO.44/70
MAIN ROAD, KARUPPUR
NADUCAVERY THIRUVAIYARU TALUK
THANJAVUR DISTRICT
TAMILNADU-613101
4. B K NAGARAJ REDDY
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
MAJOR IN AGE
PROPRIETOR BCP
NO.63/1, HEBBOGODI
HOSUR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI S ESWARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.09.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.7324/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging
the judgment and award dated 02.09.2014 passed in MVC
No.7324/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.07.2012,
the deceased Mohammed Ibrahim was met with an accident and
he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claimants being the
wife, son and also the mother of the deceased have made the
claim contending that the deceased did MBA graduation and also
an offer of appointment was given to him for gross salary of
Rs.56,000/- in terms of Ex.P12 and before reporting for duty, he
met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. The
Tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary
evidence considered the income of Rs.10,500/- and awarded
compensation of Rs.24,53,000/- with 6% interest. Hence, the
present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company that though it is the claim
that the deceased was a MBA graduate, they have not placed
any document of MBA certificate and the Tribunal also
committed an error in taking the income of Rs.10,500/- that is
the basic salary offered to the deceased and apart from that the
compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the higher
side. Hence, it requires interference.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants
vehemently contend that the deceased was did B.Sc. degree and
thereafter he had joined for MBA and pursued the same in the
year 2009-2011 but on account of death of the deceased, the
wife and minor son could not able to get the MBA certificate
hence, the same was not produced. However, produced some of
the additional documents before this Court along with a memo
stating that he did graduation and also other courses but the
Tribunal also taken only the basic salary hence, committed an
error.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material available
on record no doubt, in terms of Ex.P12, he was offered an
appointment. Admittedly, he did not report to the duty in the
meanwhile, he met with an accident. Tribunal considered the
income of the Rs.10,500/- as his basic salary and the same is
not on the higher side hence, I do not find any error committed
by the Tribunal taking an amount of Rs.10,500/- as his monthly
income since he did graduation as well as he has joined MBA but
document of MBA certificate is not placed before the Court. The
other contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company that
addition of 50% towards future prospectus is erroneous when
the deceased was not getting any permanent salary hence,
ought to have been taken only 40% hence, there is a force in
the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company
if deceased was not getting the salary and not having any
permanent source of income and no dispute with regard to that
he was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident and the
relevant multiplier would be 18. Having taken note of the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, if 40% is
added to the income of Rs.10,500/-, it comes to Rs.14,700/-
(10,500x40%) and 1/3rd has to deducted since the claimants are
wife, son and mother of the deceased and after deducting 1/3rd
it comes to Rs.9,800/- (14,700/3) and the compensation under
loss of dependency comes to Rs.21,16,800/- (9,800 x 12 x 18)
and apart from that the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/-
each towards loss of love and affection hence, it comes to
Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000x3) and the claimants are also entitled for
Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.22,69,800/-.
Thus, the appeal requires to be allowed in part modifying the
judgment of the Tribunal.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 02.09.2014 passed in MVC
No.7324/2012 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.22,69,800/- as against
Rs.24,53,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
on the enhanced compensation amount from
the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The amount in deposit made by the Insurance
Company is ordered to be transmitted to the
Tribunal forthwith.
(v) The Registry is directed to send the records to
the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
