Karnataka High Court

Ina Kousar @ Heena Kousar vs The Managing Director on 9 January, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                          -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:810
                                                   MFA No. 1036 of 2023




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                       BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1036 OF 2023 (MV-D)
              BETWEEN:
              1.    INA KOUSAR @ HEENA KOUSAR
                    W/O.LATE SADDAM HUSSEN @
                    MOHAMMED SADDAM
                    AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
              2.    ZEHARA BEE
                    D/O.LATE SADDAM HUSSEN @
                    MOHAMMED SADDAM
                    AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS

                    (A-2 IS A MINOR
                    REP. BY HER MOTHER, A-1
                    AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN)

                    A-1 AND A-2 ARE R/AT
                    NO.601, 7TH CROSS
                    'C' BLOCK, SUBESH NAGAR
                    BENGALURU-560 068
              3.    MOHAMMED AMEETH
                    S/O.MOHAMMED USEN
Digitally           AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
signed by B
LAVANYA       4.    PRAVEENTAJ
                    W/O.MOHAMMED AMEETH
Location:
HIGH                D/O.SAIED IQBAL
COURT OF            AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
KARNATAKA
                    A-3 AND A-4 ARE R/AT
                    NO.57/74, KITTAPANKUTTAI
                    HOSUR, KRSHNAGIRI
                    TAMIL NADU-635 109
                                                          ...APPELLANTS
              (BY SRI K.B.CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:810
                                       MFA No. 1036 of 2023




AND:
    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
    M/S.TNSTC LTD.
    NO.12, RAMAKRISHNA RAO
    SELAM REGION AT DHARMAPURI
    BHARATHIPURAM
    TAMIL NADU-636 705
                                              ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.PURANDARA, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.5630/2019 BY III ADDITIONAL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

the judgment and award dated 12.01.2021 passed in

MVC.No.5630/2019 by the Court of III Additional Small

Causes Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru (for short 'the

tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of

inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

NC: 2025:KHC:810

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 29.08.2019 at about 2.30 p.m., one Saddam

Hussen @ Mohammed Saddam was proceeding in his

motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-JW-4603 along

with his wife and daughter, at that time, a Bus bearing

registration No.TN-29-N-3074 came with high speed and

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

said motor cycle. Due to which, the said Saddam Hussen

@ Mohammed Saddam fell down and sustained grievous

injures and succumbed to the same on the way to the

Hospital. Hence, the claimants, who are the wife, daughter

and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking

compensation.

3.1 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.22,24,900/- with interest @ 8% p.a.

and directed respondent-Corporation to deposit the

compensation amount within two months.

NC: 2025:KHC:810

3.2 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this

Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submits

that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding

meager compensation including the income, which calls for

interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he seeks to

enhance the compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-

Corporation vehemently objects to the arguments put-

forth by learned counsel for claimants on the ground that

the compensation awarded is on the higher side and the

income taken is correct, which does not call for

interference. He finds flaw with the judgment and award

passed by the tribunal on the ground that the deduction

towards personal and living expenses taken at 1/4th is

erroneous. As the parents are not the dependants, the

deduction ought to have been taken at 1/3rd. Hence, he

seeks to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:810

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants-claimants and learned counsel for respondent-

Corporation and perused the impugned judgment and

award, the occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle,

death having occurred due to the Road Traffic Accident are

proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P11.

The appellants-claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the wife and

daughter of the deceased and claimant No.3 being the

father, is not disputed. However, in the course of

arguments, learned counsel disputes that appellant No.4

being the mother of the deceased, as she was aged 36

years and the deceased was aged 29 years as on the date

of occurrence of accident. This aspects has not been

pleaded or confronted in the evidence before the tribunal.

Further, no such issue has been framed or raised by the

tribunal. On the contrary, the tribunal has decided in the

affirmative that the appellants-claimants to be the

dependants and legal heirs of the deceased.

NC: 2025:KHC:810

7. Now coming to the age, avocation and income of

the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident, it is

not in dispute that the deceased was aged 29 years as on

the date of occurrence of accident and the multiplier taken

by the tribunal at '17' is correct, which does not call for

interference. The tribunal has taken the income at

Rs.9,500/- per month. However, the Legal Services

Authority chart prescribes the notional income of

Rs.14,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2019

and the same is taken in the present case. Under the

circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to the

compensation of Rs.29,98,800/- (Rs.14,000/- + 40% =

Rs.19,600/- - 1/4th = Rs.14,700/- x 12 x 17) towards loss

of dependency as against Rs.20,34,900/- awarded by the

tribunal.

8. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss

of consortium, which does not call for interference.

However, 10% escalation on the same is to be awarded

NC: 2025:KHC:810

under this head, which would be Rs.1,76,000/-

(Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%).

9. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead

body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses, which

also do not call for interference. In all, the claimants would

be entitled to Rs.30,000/- under these heads. However,

10% escalation on the same is to be awarded, which

would be Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).

10. In view of the above, the claimants would be

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.32,07,800/- as

against Rs.22,24,900/- as mentioned in the table below:

             Heads                        Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency                           29,98,800-00
Loss of consortium                            1,76,000-00
Loss of estate, transportation of               33,000-00
dead     body,     funeral   and
obsequies ceremony expenses
             TOTAL                              32,07,800-00

11. Accordingly, I pass the following: