Karnataka High Court
Smt. Suman Dani And Ors vs Sri Subbarao And Ors on 23 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7814
MFA No. 202703 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202703 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUMAN DANI
W/O LATE SOMANATHSA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
2. KUMARI KANCHANA
D/O LATE SOMANATHSA DANI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCC. STUDENT.
3. PRASAD
S/O LATE SOMANATHSA DANI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
OCC. STUDENT.
4. SMT. SHANTABAI
Digitally signed
by RENUKA W/O TUKARAMSA DANI
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
COURT OF OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK.
KARNATAKA
5. SMT. ANITHA
W/O PITAMBRASA DANI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK.
6. KUMARI ASHWINI
D/O PITAMBRASA DANI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
OCC. STUDENT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7814
MFA No. 202703 of 2022
7. KUMARI LAXMI
D/O PITAMBRASA DANI
AGED ABOTU 25 YEARS
OCC. STUDENT.
8. SRI. VINAYAK
S/O PITAMBRASA DANI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
OCC. STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O GANJIPET GAJENDRAGADHA
TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582 209.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SUBBARAO
S/O G. SUBBAYYA
AGE. MAJOR
OCC. DRIVER OF
MOTOR CYCLE NO. KA 36/EQ-9240
R/O S.B. COLONY, SINDHANUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
2. RAMESHA
S/O KENCHAPPA
AGE. MAJOR,
OCC. BUSINESS, OWNER OF
MOTOR CYCLE NO. KA 36/EQ-9240
R/O PAGADADINNI CAMP, TQ. SINDHANUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
RAICHUR-584 128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN .M, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH
V/O/D 18.01.2023)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7814
MFA No. 202703 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.03.2022
PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE II ADDL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR IN MVC NO. 165/2019, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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)
The captioned appeal is by the claimants questioning
the compensation determined by the Tribunal in
MVC.No.165/2019. The respondent No.3/Insurance
company has admitted its liability and therefore, appeal is
purely on quantum.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3/Insurance company. Perused the records.
3. In the present case, the claimants have filed a
petition seeking compensation for the unfortunate loss of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7814
Somanathsa in a road traffic accident that occurred on
11.01.2019. The claimants have relied on income tax
returns to substantiate that the deceased was engaged in
business and earning an annual income of Rs.4,00,000/-.
To support this, they produced the income tax returns for
the relevant assessment years, marked as Exs.P-11 to
P-13. However, the Tribunal declined to consider these
income tax returns, stating that the claimants had not led
any additional evidence besides merely submitting the
returns. Consequently, the Tribunal, instead of relying on
the returns, proceeded to notionally assess the income of
the deceased at Rs.13,250/- per month. After deducting
1/3rd of this for personal expenses, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.10,59,960/- under the head of 'loss of
dependency'. Feeling aggrieved by this assessment, the
claimants have preferred the present appeal.
4. Upon a meticulous reassessment of the
evidence on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has
grossly erred in its approach to assessing the income of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7814
the deceased. The Tribunal's rejection of the income tax
returns as evidenced was unjustified and contrary to
settled principles of law. Income tax returns are regarded
as one of the most reliable pieces of documentary
evidence to substantiate the income of an individual,
particularly when the deceased was engaged in business.
In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that income tax returns,
being statutory documents, must be given due weight
when assessing the income of a deceased person for the
purposes of calculating compensation in motor vehicle
accident claims. The Tribunal's failure to consider these
returns as credible evidence was, therefore, a serious
error.
5. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
landmark judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi & Ors.2, emphasized the importance of
considering future prospects when calculating
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7814
compensation for loss of dependency. In the present case,
the accident occurred in the year 2019, and the deceased
was 53 years of age at the time of his death. In
accordance with Pranay Sethi (supra), the Court must
add a 10% increase towards future prospects for
individuals aged between 50 and 60 years.
6. Having taken cognizance of the income tax
returns marked as Exs.P-11 to P-13, this Court, after
aggregating the income from the returns for the three
years preceding the accident, has determined the average
annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,85,144/-. Applying
the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi, this Court adds
a 10% increase for future prospects, thereby arriving at an
annual income of Rs.3,13,658/-.
7. Given that the deceased was survived by four
dependents, this Court deems it appropriate to deduct
1/4th of the income towards personal expenses, in line with
the guidelines set forth in Sarla Verma (supra). After
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7814
making this deduction, the income available for the
dependents is calculated at Rs.2,35,243/- per annum.
8. Further, as the deceased was 53 years old at
the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier to be
applied, as per the Sarla Verma guidelines, is 11.
Therefore, the compensation under the head 'loss of
dependency' is re-determined as Rs.25,87,673/- (Rs.
2,35,243/- × 11).
9. Since there are four dependents, a sum of
Rs.1,60,000/- is paid under the head 'loss of consortium'
and Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head 'funeral
expenses and loss of estate'. 10% is added under
conventional heads by applying the principle laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra). Accordingly,
Rs.19,000/- is added under the head conventional heads
which works out to Rs.1,90,000/- + 19,000/- =
Rs.2,09,000/-. Hence, the total compensation re-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7814
determined by this Court works out Rs.27,96,673/- as
against Rs.11,44,960/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.165/2019 is modified;
(iii) The appellants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.16,51,713/- which shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till realization;
(iv) The apportionment shall be made in
terms of the order of the Tribunal;
(v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
remitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
