Karnataka High Court
Shri. Noorahammad Sayyad Shahapurkar vs Shri. Kashiram S/O Mahadev Khodave on 12 February, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
MFA No. 101963 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101797 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101963 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA NO. 101797 OF 2021
IN MFA NO.101963/2021
BETWEEN:
SHRI NOORAHAMMAD SAYYAD SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. KASHIRAM S/O. MAHADEV KHODAVE,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
R/O. NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR,
KATTIMANI AT/POST: YELDA, TAL: AMBAJOGAI,
Date: 2024.02.20
17:37:04 +0530 DIST: BEED, MAHARASTRA-431517.
2. THE MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD, E-8, EPIP,
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN-302022.
3. SMT. SALMA IMRAN SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
MFA No. 101963 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101797 of 2021
4. KUMAR AYAN IMRAN SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
5. KUMAR REHAN IMRAN SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
SINCE RESPONDANT NO.4 AND 5 ARE
MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.3.
6. SMT. AMEENA W/O. NOORAHAMMAD SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLORI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DISPENSED WITH,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3 & 6 SERVED,
RESPONDENT NO.4 & 5 ARE MINORS REP.BY RESPONDENT NO.3
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 06.10.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1843/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
SITTING AT CHIKKODI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.101797/2021
1. SMT. SALMA IMRAN SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
2. KUMAR AYAN IMRAN SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
3. KUMAR REHAN IMRAN SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKODI,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
MFA No. 101963 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101797 of 2021
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
4. SMT. AMMENA @ AMINA,
W/O. NOORMAHAMMAD SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI KASHIRAM MAHADEV KHODAVE,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR,
AT/POST: YELDA, TAL: AMBAJOGAI,
DIST: BEED, MAHARASHTRA-431122.
2. THE MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD, E-8, EIPI,
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022.
3. SHRI. NOORMAHAMMAD SAYYAD SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLORI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2,
SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.3,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 06.10.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1843/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKKODI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
MFA No. 101963 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101797 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for admission, they are
taken up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel
for both the parties.
2. In both the appeals, claimants are in appeal not
being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
under judgment and award dated 06.10.2020 in MVC
No.1843/2014 on the file of learned VII Addl.District and
Sessions Judge and Member, Addl.MACT, Belagavi, sitting at
Chikkodi (for short, 'Tribunal).
3. The claimants, who are the wife, two children and
parents of the deceased Imran Shahapurkar, filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming
compensation for the accidental death of Imran Shahapurkar
that took place on 28.05.2014 involving two wheeler bearing
Chassis No.ME4JF501AD8020667 and Bolero pick-up goods
vehicle bearing registration No.MH-24/J-8367. It is stated that
the deceased was aged 29 years as on the date of accident and
was working as agriculturist and business, earning a sum of
Rs.50,000/- per month.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
4. On appearance, respondent No.1 remained absent
and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company
appeared through counsel and filed its statement of objections
denying the entire claim petition averments. Further, the
insurer contended that the accident occurred only due to
negligence of the deceased as he was rashly and negligently
riding the motorcycle. It is also contended that the deceased
was not wearing helmet and motorcycle was without certificate
of registration. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, claimants examined father of
the deceased as PW1 and also claimant No.1-wife of the
deceased as PW2 apart from marking the documents as Exs.P1
to P16. The Tribunal placing reliance on the material on record
awarded a total compensation of Rs.23,41,400/- with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization on the
following heads:
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.22,46,400/-
2. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
3. Towards transportation of dead Rs.15,000/-
body and funeral expenses
4. Towards loss of love and Rs.25,000/-
affection
5. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.23,41,400/-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
6. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,600/-
per month, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the
deceased and added Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads,
applied multiplier of '16' taking the age of the deceased as 33
years. Aggrieved by the same, claimants are in appeals seeking
enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard learned counsel Sri Santosh B.Rawoot for
claimant in MFA No.101963/2021, learned counsel Sri Sharad
Malgound Patil for claimants in MFA No.101797/2021 and
learned counsel Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori for respondent/
Insurance Company in both the appeals. Perused the appeal
papers including original records.
8. Learned counsels for the claimants contended that
the Tribunal committed grave error in not awarding
compensation on the head of future prospects. They submit
that since deceased was aged 33 years, claimants would be
entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
Pranay Sethi & Others1. Further, learned counsels would
submit that the claimants are father, wife, children and mother
of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards
spousal, filial and parental consortium in terms of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited V/s Nanu Ram @
Chuhru Ram and others2. Thus, they submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced.
9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori
would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in
deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased
ought to have deducted 1/3rd since father of the deceased is
living separately, which is apparent since the father of the
deceased has filed separate appeal. Further, learned counsel
would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
on other heads are proper and just, which needs no
interference. Thus, prayed to dismiss both the appeals.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with original
2017 (16) SCC 680
(2018) 18 SCC 130
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
records, the following point would arise for our consideration in
these appeals:
a. Whether the claimants would be entitled for
enhanced compensation?
11. Our answer to the above point would be 'in the
affirmative' for the following reasons:
12. The occurrence of the accident on 28.05.2014
involving two wheeler bearing Chassis No.ME4JF501AD8020667
and Bolero pick-up goods vehicle bearing registration
No.MH-24/J-8367 and resultant death of deceased Imran
Shahapurkar is not in dispute. The claimants are in appeals for
enhancement of compensation.
13. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at
Rs.15,600/- per month taking note of Exs.P7 to P11-income tax
returns. As the income assessed by the Tribunal is based on
Exs.P7 to P11-income tax returns, which are proper, needs no
interference. The deceased was aged 33 years. In terms of
Pranay Sethi supra wherever deceased is aged below 40
years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the
assessed income towards future prospects, if he is self-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
employed. In the instant case, since the deceased was aged 33
years and was self-employed, the claimants would be entitled
for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects.
14. The claimants are wife, two children and parents of
the deceased in terms of Magma supra, the claimants would
be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal, filial and
parental consortium. The multiplier of '16' taking the age of the
deceased as 33 years is proper and correct. The contention of
the learned counsel for the respondent-insurer that the Tribunal
committed an error in deducting 1/4th instead of 1/3rd cannot
be accepted. Only because the father of the deceased has filed
separate appeal, it cannot be said that the father of the
deceased is living separately. There is no material or evidence
to say that father is living separately. The claimants would be
entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of
dead body. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified
compensation on the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency
(Rs.15,600 (income per
month) + Rs.6,240 (40%
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
future prospects) = 21,840 x
12 (months) x 16 (multiplier) x
¾ (1/4th deduction) Rs.31,44,960/-
2. Towards loss of estate & Rs. 30,000/-
funeral expenses
3. Spousal, parental and filial Rs. 2,00,000/-
Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each)
Total Rs.33,74,960/-
15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.33,74,960/- as against Rs.23,41,400/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) Both appeals are allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs.33,74,960/- as against Rs.23,41,400/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The entire compensation amount will bear interest
at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition
till date of realization.
d) The Insurer shall deposit the entire compensation
amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal
within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3080-DB
e) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to
the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with
original records.
f) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement
shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
