Karnataka High Court
Noor Jahan vs Rahul. R. N. @ Rahul Rajendra Nangare on 5 January, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:694
MFA No. 3801 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3801 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. NOOR JAHAN,
W/O. LATE RAZAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2. AMIR HUSSAIN,
S/O. LATE RAZAB,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
3. ANISHA BEGAM,
D/O. LATE RAZAB,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
4. MASTER MOHAMMED ADNAN,
S/O. LATE RAZAB,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
Digitally signed ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 19-380/27,
by CHAITHRA
P ASHRAYA COLONY, K.S. RAO NAGARA,
Location: HIGH KARNAD, MULKI, MANGALURU,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA D.K. DISTRICT - 574 154.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAHUL R.N. @ RAHUL RAJENDRA NANGARE,
S/O RAJENDRA N. H.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO. AP912/2,
2ND CROSS, UMA TALKIES ROAD,
KUMBARAGEI, LASHKAR MOHALLA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:694
MFA No. 3801 of 2021
MYSORE, KARNATAKA - 575 001.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
4TH FLOOR, FORTUNE BUILDING,
OPP. ATHENA HOSPITAL, MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. MAHADEVA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1097/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T., AND II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 18.12.2020 passed by Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal and II Additional Senior Civil and CJM
Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (for short 'the Tribunal')
in MVC No.1097/2017. This appeal is founded on the premise of
inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek
enhancement of compensation.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:694
3. Brief facts of the case are as under;
That on 14.05.2017 at about 4.15 a.m., the deceased
Razab was walking on the extreme left side of NH-66 at Yermal
bus stand. At that time, the driver of the car bearing
registration No.KA-11-M-6746 came from Udupi side towards
Mangaluru with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the deceased Razab, due to the impact, he
sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the
body. Immediately, he was shifted to Primary Health Center,
Mulki, but he succumbed to the injuries. Prior to the accident,
the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 43 years,
working as cracker burster under one Mr.Abdul Khader and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The accident occurred purely
on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing
registration No.KA-11-M-6746 by its driver. Respondent No.1
being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the
car are liable and responsible to pay the compensation to the
claimants. Hence, they filed a claim petition seeking
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:694
3.1 On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have
appeared before the tribunal through their counsel.
Respondent No.1 did not file any written statement.
Respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied petition
averments including the accident, manner in which the accident
took place and rash and negligent driving of the car by its
driver as the cause for the accident. Respondent No.2 has also
denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and that
claimants sustained loss due to the death of deceased. The
compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and
exorbitant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.2 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
3.3 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish
the case, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and two
more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked documents as
Exs.P1 to P18. On the other hand, respondents got marked the
document as Ex.R1.
3.4 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and
documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned
NC: 2024:KHC:694
counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.10,98,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the
claimants.
3.5 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court
challenging the impugned judgment and award.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
claimants is that the road traffic accident that occurred on
14.05.2017, one Razab i.e., husband of the appellant No.1 and
father of appellant Nos.2 to 4 met with accident and succumbed
to the injuries. Prior to the accident, Razab was aged 43 years
and was working as cracker burster under one Abdul Khader
and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. PW.1 has spoken
about the income and avocation as well as PW.3 namely, Abdul
Khader has also stated that Razab was working under him and
he was paying Rs.500/- per day as wages and Ex.P.18-salary
certificate was placed before the tribunal. Inspite of these
evidence, the tribunal has taken monthly income of Razab as
Rs.9,000/- only, which is on the lower side. Though the
tribunal held that the deceased had left behind four
NC: 2024:KHC:694
dependents, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards
personal expenses instead of 1/4th. The tribunal has also failed
to consider the future prospects of deceased while awarding the
compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal preferred by the
claimants and seeks enhancement of compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly
awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call
for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for claimants and
learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the
deceased Razab said to have died on 14.05.2017 i.e., at age of
43 years. The claimants have contended that the deceased
Razab was working as cracker burster and earning Rs.15,000/-
per month, which is certified by PW.3 - employer by producing
salary certificate at Ex.P.18 to show that, he was earning
Rs.500/- per day. However, the tribunal has negatived and not
believed the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, so also, Ex.P.18, has
NC: 2024:KHC:694
awarded the income of Rs.9000/- per month, whereas the
notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes
the income of Rs.11,000/- for the accident of the year 2017.
Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.11,000/-. The age of the
deceased was 43 years. The tribunal has rightly applied the
multiplier at '14', which does not call for interference. The
tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal
expenses, whereas the deceased left behind four dependents
and the deductions towards personal expenses ought to have
been taken at 1/4th rather than 1/3rd. The tribunal has failed to
award future prospectus, in view of deceased being aged 43
years, 25% would have to be added to the income as future
prospects. Hence, the income shall be taken as Rs.10,313/- per
month (Rs.11,000/- + 25% - 1/4th). Hence, loss of
dependency would be Rs.17,32,584/- (Rs.10,313/- x 12 x 14)
as against Rs.10,08,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
7. Towards loss of consortium and loss of love and
affection, the tribunal has awarded totally Rs.60,000/-. As
there are four dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
NC: 2024:KHC:694
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme
Court Cases 680. Therefore, under the head of loss of
consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 4) along with 10% escalation towards one block
period, which would be Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- +
10%).
8. The tribunal has awarded totally Rs.30,000/- under the
head of loss of estate and transportation of dead body and
performance of obsequies ceremony, whereas, 10% escalation
towards one block period is required to be granted, which
would be Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%) in all.
9. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled
to a total compensation of Rs.19,41,584/- as against
Rs.10,98,000/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 17,32,584-00
Loss of consortium 1,76,000-00
and loss of love and affection
Loss of estate and
transportation of dead body
33,000-00
and performance of obsequies
ceremony
TOTAL 19,41,584 -00
NC: 2024:KHC:694
10. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent-
Insurance Company vehemently contends that the consortium
awarded by the tribunal does not call for interference, in view
of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhagat Singh
Rawat & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 [@
SLP[C] Nos.11669-11671/2020 [decided on
27.03.2023], wherein, the total amount awarded under the
conventional head is Rs.70,000/-(Rs.40,000/- + Rs.30,000/-)
and not Rs.40,000/- per person as argued by the learned
counsel for appellants/claimants.
11. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for
respondent-Insurance Company cannot be accepted for the
reason that the Constitutional Bench in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680,
which has been subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130
and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur Alias
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:694
Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, has held
that a sum of Rs.40,000/- per person to be awarded under
consortium. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion
that Rs.40,000/- per person is to be awarded.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 18.12.2020 passed by
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and II Additional
Senior Civil and CJM Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina
Kannada in MVC.No.1097/2017 is modified;
iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.19,41,584/- as against Rs.10,98,000/- with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization;
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by
the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:694
v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CPN
CT: BHK
