Tahreenbegum And Ors vs Jude Johan Manohar And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 26762 Kant

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 26762 Kant
Judgement Date : 8 November, 2024

Karnataka High Court

Tahreenbegum And Ors vs Jude Johan Manohar And Anr on 8 November, 2024

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:8239
                                                           MFA No. 200304 of 2021




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                           MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200304 OF 2021 (MV-D)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   TAHREENBEGUM
                           W/O LATE AKBAR HUSSAIN,
                           AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                           R/O. CHATNALLI, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.

                      2.   AROOZ
                           S/O. LATE AKBAR HUSSAIN,
                           AGE: 3 YEARS 6 MONTHS,
                           UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF APPELLANT NO.1,
                           (NATURAL MOTHER OF MINOR APPELLANT)
                      3.   MOHD. HUSSAIN @ HANIF SAB,
                           S/O. ISMAIL SAB, AGE: 66 YEARS,
                           OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL.
Digitally signed by   4.   KHAUTEJA BI
RENUKA
                           W/O. MD. HUSSAIN @ HANIFSAB,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                   AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
KARNATAKA                  ALL ARE R/O. VILLAGE CHATNALLI,
                           TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.
                                                                     ...APPELLANTS

                      (BY SRI. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   JUDE JOHAN MANOHAR
                           S/O. TVS JUDE,
                           AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                           R/O. H.NO. 5-9-194/2,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC-K:8239
                                    MFA No. 200304 of 2021




      CHIRANGEVI LANE,
      ABIDS NAMPALLI,
      HYDERABAD- 500001 (TS)

2.    IFFCO-TOKOI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
      THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
      HYDERABAD RURAL SUB 3RD FLOOR,
      BALAJI EMPIRE, ABOVE MAX SHOWROOM
      MADINGUDA, HYDERABAD -500050
      (POLICY NO. 99316078)
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. DTD: 11.11.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 18.08.2020, PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT BIDAR, IN MVC NO.22/2017
AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

Captioned appeal by the claimants questioning the

quantum determined by the Tribunal in MVC No.22/2017.

The second respondent - insurance company admits its

liability. The appeal is purely on quantum.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8239

2. The claimants are aggrieved by the

compensation determined by the Tribunal under the head

of loss of dependency. While questioning determination of

compensation under the head of loss of dependency,

claimants contend that though substantial evidence was

adduced by the claimants to demonstrate that deceased

was working as a driver under PW.2 and was getting a

salary of Rs.12,000/-. the Tribunal has disbelieved the

evidence let in by the claimants in regard to the income of

the deceased.

3. Claimants have failed to adduce cogent

evidence to substantiate deceased actual income. Mere

examining PW.2 and the bald statement by PW.2 that

deceased was working as a driver will not suffice. As

rightly held by Tribunal, PW.2 has not placed on record

any documents to substantiate that he owns a lorry and

had engaged the deceased as a driver.

4. In absence of income proof, this Court is of the

view that Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8239

deceased Rs.7,000/- per month. In absence of income

proof, this Court is inclined to rely on the income chart

prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority.

Accident is of the year 2016. Therefore, income is

assessed at Rs.8,750/- per month and by adding 40%,

income is assessed at Rs.12,250/-. Since there are four

dependents, 1/4th is deducted and income is assessed at

Rs.9,188/- and by applying a multiplier of '16',

compensation payable under the head of loss of

dependency works out to Rs.17,64,096/-

(Rs.9,188x12x16).

5. Since there are four dependents, a sum of

Rs.1,60,000/- is awarded and Rs.30,000/- towards funeral

expenses and loss of estate. 10% escalation on

Rs.1,90,000/- works out to Rs.38,000/- for every three

years as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in

the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.

Pranay Sethi.1 Accordingly, claimants are entitled for

(2017) 16 SCC 680

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8239

enhanced compensation of Rs.19,92,096/- as against

Rs.14,81,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

6. In the light of the discussion made supra,

following order is passed:

ORDER

a) Appeal is allowed in part.

b) Appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced

compensation of Rs.5,10,896/- with interest at

the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

claim petition till its realization.