Karnataka High Court
Shireen Tabsoom And Ors vs Divisional Controller Of Neksrtc Bidar on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
MFA No. 202119 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202119 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIREEN TABSOOM
W/O LATE MUJEEB,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. TAIZEEB D/O LATE MUJEEB,
AGE: 05 YEARS,
3. SEJANORIN D/O LATE MUJEEB,
AGE: 2 YEARS 6 MONTHS,
4. JALEELSAB S/O IMMAMSAB,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN 5. SHAHIDA BEGUM W/O JALEELSAB,
Location:
HIGH COURT AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
OF
KARNATAKA
APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
HENCE CLAIM FILED THROUGH THEIR
NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
ALL ARE NATIVE OF ADARSH COLONY,
AURAD-B, DIST: BIDAR-585 326.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R MATH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
MFA No. 202119 of 2019
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OF
NEKSRTC BIDAR,
ADDRESS: STATION ROAD, OPP. TO OFFICE,
STATION ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.
(REGISTERED OWNER AND CUSTODIAN OF
VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-38/F-717)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.03.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AURAD-B IN MVC
NO.79/2017.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurad-B
in MVC No.79/2017 dated 05.03.2018.
3. The claimants i.e., the wife of the deceased
Mujeeb aged about 30 years, two minor daughters aged
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
about 03 and 06 years respectively, father of the deceased
aged about 60 years and mother aged about 55 years filed
a petition claming just compensation in the light of the
death of their bread winner i.e., the deceased Mujeeb
(hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased' for brevity) in a
road traffic accident that occurred on 29.09.2016.
4. As against the claim for Rs.90,00,000/-, the
Tribunal through the impugned order, awarded a sum of
Rs.15,52,000/- as compensation. Projecting that the said
sum is highly unjustifiable, the present appeal is filed.
5. Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for the
appellants started his submission contending that the
deceased was owning a car garage and he was repairing
the cars and thereby was earning Rs.6,00,000/- per
annum. Learned counsel also submits that the deceased
was also holding agricultural land and was deriving income
through agriculture. Learned counsel submits that Exs.P11
to P32 were produced to establish the occupation of the
deceased and his income. Yet, the Tribunal took the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
nominal income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month
and awarded a meager sum under the head 'loss of
dependency'. Learned counsel further contends that the
deceased was maintaining his wife, his two minor
daughters and his parents and they are all lost their
livelihood due to the death of the deceased and therefore,
just compensation may be awarded.
6. Per contra, the submission made by
Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned counsel for the
respondent is that, respondent preferred the appeal
challenging the impugned order vide MFA
No.201038/2018. Learned counsel submits that the
respondent preferred the said appeal on two grounds.
Firstly, that the amount awarded as compensation is
excessive and secondly, that the interest awarded i.e., at
the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation granted is
required to be reduced. Learned counsel submits that the
said appeal, however, stood dismissed. Learned counsel
contends that yet the Tribunal has granted just
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
compensation and therefore, the order needs no
interference.
7. The accident occurred in the year 2016.
Undisputedly, by the date of accident, the deceased was
owning a car garage and was maintaining the same.
Relevant documents including the permission issued by
the District Industries Centre to the deceased to set up a
service enterprise at Auto Nagar, Naubad were produced.
Therefore, the appellants have clearly established that the
deceased by owning and maintaining a car garage was
deriving income through repair of cars. Thus, in the light
of the evidence produced with regard to the occupation
and having considered the fact that the appellants failed to
establish the income in clear terms and further taking into
consideration the fact that no income tax returns were
filed, this Court is of the view that just compensation can
be granted by taking the notional income as Rs.15,000/-
per month.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the appellants Sri Basavaraj R. Math, the Tribunal failed to
add future prospects. It is not in dispute that the deceased
died at the age of 32 years. Therefore, as per the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the
income has to be added towards future prospects.
9. Thus, without disturbing all other parameters
i.e., deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living
expenses which the deceased would have incurred himself
had he been alive as the dependents are five in number
and applying the appropriate multiplier '16', the loss of
dependency, if calculated, would be as under:
Monthly income Rs.15,000/-
Add 40% towards future prospects Rs.21,000/-
Annual income Rs.2,52,000/-
On deduction of 1/4th towards personal and Rs.1,89,000/-
living expenses
On applying appropriate multiplier '16' Rs.30,24,000/-
Thus, the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.30,24,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
10. Together with the said amount, the appellants
are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. That apart, the
first appellant being the wife of deceased is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, appellant
Nos.2 and 3 being the children are entitled to Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of parental consortium and appellant Nos.4
and 5 being the parents are entitled to Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of filial consortium.
11. Thus, the compensation which the appellants
are entitled to under different heads would be as under:
Compensation
Sl.
Heads awarded by this
No.
Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.30,24,000/-
2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of spousal consortium to Rs.40,000/-
appellant No.1
5. Loss of parental consortium to Rs.40,000/-
6. Loss of filial consortium to Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs.31,74,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
12. As earlier indicated, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.15,52,000/- as compensation. Thus, the
appellants are entitled to an additional sum of
Rs.16,22,000/- (Rs.31,74,000 - Rs.15,52,000).
13. Thus, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The amount awarded as compensation by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurad-B through
orders in MVC No.79/2017 dated 05.03.2018 is
enhanced by Rs.16,22,000/-.
iii. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till
the date of deposit.
iv. The respondent is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount with interest within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2816
v. The apportionment made by the Tribunal remains
undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
