Karnataka High Court
Nisar Ahamed vs Jagadeesh Kumar M on 12 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
MFA No. 6343 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6326 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6343 OF 2022(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6326 OF 2022(MV-I)
IN MFA No. 6343 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. NISAR AHAMED,
S/O SILAR SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2. SHABANA AZMEEM,
W/O NISAR AHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.208, WARD NO.1,
NAZEEMA MANZIL,
Digitally signed by PERVAJE ROAD, KOLLOTTE KASABA,
AASEEFA KARKALA TALUK,
PARVEEN NOW R/AT NAZARABAD, 2ND CROSS
Location: HIGH TUMAKURU CITY-572101.
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAGADEESH KUMAR M.,
S/O. K. MANI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1/1D, 6B BHAVANI MAIN ROAD,
PACHAKADUM SANKARI TALUK
SALAM DISTRICT-637301.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
MFA No. 6343 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6326 of 2022
2. MAGMA HDI GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE,
NO.36, H. M. JOURNALIST COLONY,
2ND FLOOR, MINERVA CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 07.03.2024)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.793/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 6326 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SYED ALFA,
S/O ANSAR PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT CORONATION VILLAGE,
TIPUTR TOWN-572201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAGADEESH KUMAR M.,
S/O. K. MANI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1/1D, 6B BHAVANI MAIN ROAD,
PACHAKADU SANKARI TALUK,
SALAM DISTRICT-637301
2. MAGMA HDI GEN.INS.CO.LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
MFA No. 6343 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 6326 of 2022
BRANCH OFFICE,
NO.36, H M JOURNALIST COLONY,
2ND FLOOR, MINERVA CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A.,ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH,
V/O. DATED 11.03.2024)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 780/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
While MFA No.6343/2022 is filed by the claimants in MVC
No.793/2020, MFA 6326/2022 is filed by the claimant in MVC
No.780/2020 seeking enhancement of compensation. Both the
impugned orders were rendered on 30.04.2022 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru.
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
2. Heard Sri.Shantaraj.K learned counsel for the
appellants in both the appeals as well as Sri.Mallikarjun
Reddy.N.A. who represented Sri.Pradeep.B learned counsel on
record for respondent No.2 in both the appeals.
3. The crux of the case as projected by the claimants
in both the appeals is that on 21.03.2020, while the claimant in
MVC No.780/2020 was proceeding along with the son of the
claimants in MVC No.793/2020 on a Suzuki Axis motor bike
bearing registration No.KA-44-H-9895 and while the said
motorcycle was being driven by the claimant in MVC
No.780/2020, the driver of the lorry bearing registration
No.TN-52-H-8056, drove his lorry in a rash and negligent
manner and at a high speed and dashed against the motor
cycle from the rear side and the back wheel of the lorry run
over the motorcycle due to which the claimant in MVC
No.780/2020 and the son of the claimants in MVC No.793/2020
by name Nihal Ahamed sustained injuries. Nihal Ahamed died
while taking treatment due to the injuries sustained.
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
Arguments advanced and findings of this Court
in MFA No.6343/2022, which is connected to MVC
No.793/2020:
4. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.20,72,160/- as compensation. Raising a ground
that the said amount is grossly low, the present appeal is
preferred by the claimants.
5. Arguing the matter, Sri.Shantharaj.K learned
counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased
Nihal Ahamed (hereinafter be referred to as the 'deceased' for
brevity) was working as driver and was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month by the date of accident. But without considering the
occupation and earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal took the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month
erroneously. Learned counsel states that the income of the
deceased is required to be taken as Rs.25,000/- per month.
6. The submission that is made by Sri.Mallikarjuna
Reddy.N.A. representing respondent No.2 Insurance Company,
on the other hand, is that the appellants failed to produce any
substantive proof with regard to the occupation and earnings of
the deceased by the date of accident. Learned counsel contends
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
that production of a driving license itself is not sufficient to hold
that a person holding driving license is a driver by profession.
Learned counsel submits that as the appellants failed to
produce the occupation and income of the deceased, the
Tribunal rightly took the notional income of the deceased as
Rs.14,500/- per month.
7. As rightly contended by Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy.N.A.
learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company,
except producing EX.P13 driving license, the appellants did not
produce any substantive proof with regard to the occupation
and earnings of the deceased by the date of accident. Atleast
the place where the deceased was working as driver is not
stated in clear terms. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
the Tribunal did not err in taking the notional income of the
deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month for the relevant period.
8. Learned counsel Sri.Shantharaj.K also submitted
that the Tribunal deducted 50% of the earnings of the deceased
towards his personal and living expenses. Learned counsel
states that the deduction should be 1/3rd. Opposing the said
submission, Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy.N.A. learned counsel for
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
respondent No.2 Insurance Company states that the Tribunal
basing on the mandate of law, deducted 50% of the earnings of
the deceased towards his personal and living expenses.
9. Undisputedly, the deceased died as bachelor. The
claimants are the parents of the deceased. Thus, as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the Tribunal has deducted 50%
of the earnings of the deceased towards personal and living
expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself
had he been alive. No special circumstances or justifiable
grounds are shown to deviate with the established procedure of
deducting 50% of the earnings towards personal and living
expenses where the person who died in an accident is a
bachelor and claimants are parents.
10. On going through the impugned order, this Court
finds that the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of
Rs.21,92,400/- towards loss of dependency. Also the sum
awarded under all other heads i.e., loss of consortium, loss of
estate and funeral expenses is proper. Therefore, this Court
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
does not find any grounds to interfere with the findings given
by the tribunal that the appellants/claimants are entitled to a
sum of Rs.23,02,400/- as compensation.
Arguments advanced and the findings of this Court
in MFA No.6326/2022, which is connected to MVC
No.780/2022:
11. This is a case where the appellant claimed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by
him in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal through the
impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.49,050/- as
compensation.
12. Sri.Shantharaj.K learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries
and he spent huge amount for the treatment. However, the
Tribunal awarded meager sum as compensation and therefore,
an appeal is filed.
13. On the other hand, the submission that is made by
Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy.N.A. learned counsel for respondent No.2
Insurance Company is that the appellant failed to produce any
evidence except his oral testimony regarding the aspects of
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
hospitalisation, the nature of injuries sustained and the
treatment taken and therefore, the Tribunal awarded justifiable
sum as compensation basing on the evidence produced.
14. A perusal of record reveals that the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under head pain and suffering,
Rs.10,000/- towards food, attendant and conveyance charges,
Rs.14,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period, in
total Rs.54,500/-. Deducting a sum of Rs.5,450/- being the
sum that comes towards contributory negligence on part of the
appellant i.e., 10%, ordered the respondents to pay a sum of
Rs.49,050/- to the appellant.
15. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
fracture of upper 1/3rd of left femur which is grievous in
nature. Also, it is brought on record that the appellant took
treatment for the said injury as an inpatient. However, the
appellant failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to
his occupation and earnings by the date of accident. On
considering the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the
view that the appellant would be taken bed rest at least for a
period of two months. Therefore, awarding a sum of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
Rs.14,500/- towards loss of earnings during laid up period is
grossly low. Considering the nature of injury sustained and the
treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is required to be
enhanced by Rs.30,000/- so that the sum awarded as
compensation would be justifiable. The sum of Rs.30,000/-
which is awarded in addition to the sum that is awarded by the
Tribunal is excluding the sum that would be borne by the
appellant for the contributory negligence.
16. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.30,000/- payable by the respondents herein in addition to
this sum that is liable to be paid by the respondents as per the
award passed.
17. Thus, both the appeals are disposed of with the
following:
ORDER
(i) MFA No.6343/2022 is dismissed without costs.
(ii) MFA 6326/2022 is allowed in part.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45724
(iii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru in MVC
No.780/2020 which is payable by the
respondents is enhanced by Rs.30,000/-.
(iv) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.2 in MFA No.6326/2022 is
directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
(v) On such deposit, the appellant in MFA
No.6326/2022 is permitted to withdraw the
same.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
CT:TSM
