Karnataka High Court
Smt.Farhat Banu vs The Managing Director on 11 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
MFA No. 100782 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100782 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100113 OF 2019 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO. 100782 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, BHATKAL,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R
Location: High 1. SMT. FARHAT BANU,
Court of AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench W/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN.
2. MUBASHIRA NAVNEEN RUKNUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN.
3. TAUFIQUE AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN.
4. FATHIMA SAFA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
MFA No. 100782 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
5. FATHAN NOOR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN.
6. TUFAIL AHMAD RUKNUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN,
ALL ARE R/O. NAYAB MANSION,
NAVAYAT COLONY, TANZEEM ROAD,
TQ: BHATKAL, NORTH CANARA DISTRICT,
PINCODE-581320.
7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. VRL LOGISTICS LTD,
REGISTERED OFFICE N-4,
BANGALORE ROAD, VARUR,
ARALIKATTE, HUBBALLI 581207.
8. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI,
II FLOOR, SHRINATH COMPLEX,
COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
9. SMT. ASIYA IQBAL W/O. IQBAL SIDDIGUE,
AGED MAJOR, R/O. BYTHULLA SIDDIQ,
ITS CROSS, NAVAYATH COLONY,
MOOSA NAGAR, BHATKAL,
NORTH CANARA DISTRICT,
PINCODE 581320.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P G CHIKKANARAGUND, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R7;
SRI. R. R. MANE, ADV. FOR R8;
NOTICE TO R9 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC
NO.137/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL
M.A.C.T, KUMTA CONCURRENT AT M.A.C.T, BHATKAL EXAMINE THE
SAME AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2018 IS REQUIRES TO BE
MODIFIED BY FIXING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE
INSURER AND INSURED OF THE LORRY AND COMPENSATION
GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL REQUIRES TO BE REDUCED TO JUST
LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
MFA No. 100782 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
IN MFA CROB NO. 100113 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.FARHAT BANU,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
W/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN,
R/O. NAYAB MANSION, NAVAYAT COLONY,
TANZEEM ROAD, TQ: BHATKAL,
N. K. DISTRICT-581320.
2. MUBASHIRA NAVNEEN RUKNUDDIN,
AGE 30 YEARS,
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN,
R/O. NAYAB MANSION, NAVAYAT COLONY,
TANZEEM ROAD, TQ: BHATKAL,
N. K. DISTRICT-581320.
3. TAUFIQUE AHMED
AGE 27 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN,
R/O. NAYAB MANSION, NAVAYAT COLONY,
TANZEEM ROAD, TQ: BHATKAL,
N. K. DISTRICT-581320.
4. FATHIMA SAFA,
AGE 25 YEARS,
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN,
R/O. NAYAB MANSION, NAVAYAT COLONY,
TANZEEM ROAD, TQ: BHATKAL,
N. K. DISTRICT-581320.
5. TUFAIL AHMAD RUKNUDDIN,
AGE 19 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN,
R/O. NAYAB MANSION, NAVAYAT COLONY,
TANZEEM ROAD, TQ: BHATKAL,
N. K. DISTRICT-581320.
...CROSS OBJECTORS.
(BY SRI. P. G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. VRL LOGISTICS LTD,
REGISTERED OFFICE N-4, BANGALORE ROAD,
VARUR, ARALIKATTE, HUBBALLI-581207.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
MFA No. 100782 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI,
IIND FLOOR, SHRINATH COMPLEX,
COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
3. SMT. ASIYA IQBAL
W/O. IQBAL SIDDIGUE, AGE: MAJOR,
R/O. BYTHULLA SIDDIQ,
1ST CROSS, NAVAYATH COLONY,
MOOSA NAGAR, BHATKAL,
N. K. DISTRICT-581320.
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE BHATKAL,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
5. FATHIMA SAFA,
AGE 25 YEARS,
D/O. LATE MOHAMMED MEERA RUKNUDDIN,
R/O. NAYAB MANSION, NAVAYAT COLONY,
TANZEEM ROAD, TQ: BHATKAL,
N. K. DISTRICT-581320.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. M. Y. KATAGI, ADV. FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV. FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R3 & R5 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100782/2019 IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2018 IN M.V.C NO.137/2016 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE ADDL. MACT, KUMATA, CONCURRENT AT MACT,
BHATKAL AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE
CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
MFA No. 100782 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This appeal as well as cross objection are arising out of
judgment and award dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Member,
Addl. MACT, Kumta, sitting at Bhatkal (for short, 'Tribunal'), in
MVC No.137/2016.
2. MFA No.100782/2019 is filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the judgment and award on the ground of
negligence as well as quantum of compensation, whereas, MFA
Crob No.100113/2019 is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal
are as under:
The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking
compensation on account of death of Mohammed Meera
Ruknuddin @ Bhasha Ruknuddin, who died in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 07.11.2015 at about 12.45 hours,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
when the deceased along with others was proceeding in a
Tavera Car bearing registration No.KA-47/3313 from Mangalore
Airport towards Bhatkal side, the driver of the said Tavera Car
drove the same very slowly on the side of the road at a place
called Ottinene. At that time, one Container Lorry bearing
registration No.KA-25/B-2190, driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against Tavera Car, in which the
deceased was travelling. Due to the said impact, deceased
Mohammed Meera Ruknuddin sustained severe injuries.
Immediately, he was shifted to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi for
treatment, wherein he was an inpatient for five days and he
died on account of accidental injuries on 12.11.2015. The
deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident
and he was working at Dubai and earning monthly salary of
3250 Dirhams.
5. The respondents appeared before the Tribunal and
filed separate statement of objections by denying all averments
made in the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record at
Exs.P1 to P11, Ex.R1 to R4 and oral evidence of PW1 and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
granted total compensation of Rs.12,24,335/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the appeal papers including original records of the
Tribunal.
8. Smt. Preeti Shashank, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company in support of her appeal would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal has erroneously saddled
liability on the insurer of Tavera Car alone, though the
claimants have pleaded that the accident had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of driver of Container Lorry only. The
Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-
per month, as per the Circular issued by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority & High Court Legal Services
Committee, Dharwad, notional income would be considered at
Rs.8,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2015.
Further, claimants No.2 and 3 are the major and earning sons
of the deceased and they are not dependents of the deceased.
Hence, 1/3rd of the assessed income has to be deducted
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, she prays
for allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund, learned
counsel for the claimants contended that prior to the accident,
the deceased was working at Dubai and earning 3250 Dirhams
per month (1 Dirham = Rs.13), which comes to Rs.42,250/-
per month. But, the Tribunal considered the notional income of
the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is on the lower
side. Further, the claimants had spent a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
towards medical expenses, however, the Tribunal has granted
only Rs.74,335/-, which is contrary to the medical bills
produced by the claimants. Learned counsel further contended
that there are six dependents, but the Tribunal has not
considered claimants No.2 and 3 as dependents of the
deceased, since they are major sons. On all these grounds, he
prays for allowing the cross objection filed by the claimants and
prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the appeal papers including original records of the
Tribunal, the following points would arise for our consideration:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
a) Whether the Insurance Company has made out a
ground that there was head on collusion between
Tavera Car and Container Lorry and hence, driver
of Container Lorry also contributed in the
occurrence of accident to an extent of 50%?
b) Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable or does it call for
enhancement or reduction?
11. So far as negligence is concerned, from the perusal
of Ex.R4-Charge Sheet, Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Complaint and Ex.P3-
Spot Panchanama, it clearly establishes that the driver of
Tavera Car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed to Container Lorry, hence, the
Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against driver of Tavera
Car. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not challenged
the charge sheet. Therefore, we are of the considered view that
the Tribunal has rightly saddled negligence on the driver of the
Tavera Car and the said finding is based on the material
evidence on record. Thus, the appellant/Insurer has failed to
prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the
driver of the Container Lorry. Accordingly, the contention of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
the appellant/insurer with regard to contributory negligence has
no merit consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.
12. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned,
in order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants
have furnished Ex.P11-Passport of the deceased, which
discloses that prior to the accident, the deceased was working
in Private Company at Dubai. However, the claimants have not
furnished any proof of income of the deceased. Therefore, the
Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-
per month, as the deceased was working at Dubai, which in our
view is just and reasonable and therefore, notional income that
would be available for the accident of the year 2015 at
Rs.8,000/- per month cannot be made applicable to the case on
hand.
13. The Tribunal has not considered the future
prospects of the deceased, while granting compensation. In
the claim petition, the claimants have stated that the deceased
was aged about 59 years as on the date of the accident. In
terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
Others1, the claimants would be entitled to addition of 10% of
the assessed income towards future prospects. Since there are
four dependents, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased. There is no dispute with regard to
multiplier of '9' applicable to the age of the deceased. Thus,
loss of dependency is reckoned as under:
Rs.15,000 + 10%(Rs.1,500) = 16,500 x ¼ = Rs.4,125/-
Rs.16,500-Rs.4,125=Rs.12,375 x 12 x 9 = Rs.13,36,500/-
14. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.74,335/-
towards medical expenses, as per medical bills produced by the
claimants and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is just and
proper and does not require any modification.
15. The Tribunal awarded a meager compensation
under the head of loss of consortium. In light of decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram &
Others2, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2018) 18 SCC 130
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all, the
claimants are entitled to modified compensation as under:
Loss of dependency Rs.13,36,500/-
Loss of consortium (Rs.40000 x6) Rs. 2,40,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 74,335/-
------------------
Total Rs.16,80,835/-
------------------
16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.16,80,835/- as against Rs.12,24,335/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
17. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed.
b) Cross objection filed by the claimants is
allowed in part.
c) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants are entitled to total compensation
of Rs.16,80,835/- as against
Rs.12,24,335/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16459-DB
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2019
e) The appellant/Insurance Company shall
deposit the aforesaid compensation with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
f) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted
to the Tribunal forthwith, along with TCR.
g) The apportionment, disbursement and deposit
shall be made as per award of the Tribunal.
h) Draw modified award accordingly.
i) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
j) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
JTR/ct-an
