Karnataka High Court
Yasmeeen Sultana And Ors vs Rabbani And Anr on 8 February, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1389-DB
MFA No. 200269 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200269 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. YASMEEEN SULTANA
W/O ABDUL KHADAR @ MOSIN,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. MD. ZEESHAN
S/O ABDUL KHADER @ MOSIN,
AGE: 07 YEARS, MINOR,
U/G OF HER MOTHER
SMT. YAMEEN SULTANA,
3. MUKTARODDIN S/O ABDUL KHADAR,
Digitally signed AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
4. NAFEESA BEGUM W/O MUKTARODDIN,
KARNATAKA AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
5. AYASHA SULTANA D/O MUKTARODDIN,
AGE: 29 YEARS, UNSOUND MIND
U/G OF HER FATHER,
MUKRARODDIN S/O ABDUL KHADAR,
ALL R/O BIRADAR COLONY, BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1389-DB
MFA No. 200269 of 2022
AND:
1. RABBANI
S/O SHAMSHUDDIN,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 7236,
NALBAND GALLI,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR-585327.
OWNER OF AUTO NO. KA56/0460
2. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
3RD FLOOR, SIAN PLAZA,
TIMMAPURI CIRCLE,
MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PREETHI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
20.02.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC AND ADDL.MACT AT BASAVAKALYAN IN MVC
NO.657/2017 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED
BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1389-DB
MFA No. 200269 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Ambica Patil, who argued on behalf of
Sri.Sachin Mahajan, learned counsel on record for the
appellants as well as Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel for respondent No.2. Issuance of notice to
respondent No.1 stood dispensed with.
2. Questioning the validity of the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
Basavakalyan in MVC No.657/2017 dated 20.02.2020, the
present appeal is filed. This is a claimants' appeal.
3. The matrix of the case as can be perceived from
the material available on record is that on 20.06.2017 at
about 6.00 p.m. the deceased Abdul Kadhar (hereinafter
referred to as "deceased" for brevity) who is the husband of
appellant No.1, father of appellant No.2, son of appellant
Nos.3 and 4 and brother of appellant No.5 was proceeding to
his house which is situated at Sastapur in an Ape Auto
bearing registration No.KA-56/0460. When the auto reached
near Bandavaroni on Basavakalyan-Sastapur road, the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1389-DB
driver of the said Ape auto drove the vehicle at a high speed
and in a rash and negligent manner. He ultimately lost the
control over the vehicle and thereby the vehicle dashed to a
road divider. The deceased who was present in the said Ape
auto sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of his body.
Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government
Hospital, Basavakalyan and later he was being shifted to
Solapur Hospital for better treatment. However, he
succumbed to the injuries on the way.
4. The present appeal is preferred seeking for
enhancement of compensation. The tribunal through the
impugned orders awarded compensation of Rs.13,56,000/-
in toto in the following heads:
Sl. Compensation
Different Heads
No. Amount
1 Total Loss of Dependency Rs.12,96,000/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.20,000/-
3 Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
4 Towards funeral Expenses Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.13,56,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1389-DB
5. On this day, arguing in respect of the merits of
the matter, the learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the deceased was maintaining a firm by name Kadhar
Wood Works situated at Sastapur Bangla at Auto Nagar and
was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. He was maintaining
the appellants. Learned counsel states that without
considering the income of the deceased as projected, the
tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as
Rs.9,000/- per month and thereby awarded a meager sum
as compensation and therefore the present appeal is
preferred.
6. On the other hand, the submission made by
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that the amount
awarded as compensation is just and reasonable.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant, the appellants pleaded that the deceased was
earning Rs.50,000/- per month by maintaining a firm by
name Kadhar Wood Works. However, no substantive proof is
produced to that effect. In the absence of any evidence with
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1389-DB
regard to the actual occupation and income of the deceased
by the date of the accident, the pleadings alone cannot be
taken into consideration. However, having regard to the fact
that the accident occurred and the deceased succumbed to
the injuries in the year 2017, this Court is of the view that
nominal income of the deceased ought to have been
assessed at Rs.10,250/- per month which figure is taken
into consideration even for settlement of cases in Lok Adalat,
where the income is not established. Therefore, having
considered the age of the deceased as 32 years by the date of
the accident, if the said figure is taken to be the income of
the deceased, 40% of the income has to be added towards
future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
The appropriate multiplier to be applied is 16. Admittedly,
the dependants are four in number. Therefore, 1/4th of the
income of the deceased has to be deducted towards the
personal and living expenses which the deceased would have
incurred for himself had he been alive. Thus, the annual
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1389-DB
contribution of the deceased towards the appellants comes
to Rs.1,29,150/-. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to
Rs.20,66,400/-.
8. Together with the said amount, the appellants
are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional
heads in toto. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.21,36,400/- under the following heads;
Description By the Tribunal By this Court
Loss of dependency Rs.12,96,000/- Rs.20,66,400/-
Conventional Heads Rs.60,000/- Rs.70,000/-
Total Rs.13,56,000/- Rs.21,36,400/-
Enhancement Rs.7,80,400/-
9. Hence, the following;
ORDER
a. The appeal is allowed in part.
b. The amount awarded as compensation by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Basavakalyan, through orders in MVC
657/2017 is enhanced by Rs.7,80,400/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1389-DB
c. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @
6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.
d. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount within a period of eight
weeks.
e. The apportionment by the tribunal remains
undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
CT: CS
