Karnataka High Court

Smt. Noorjahan vs Mr. Hasanabha on 30 June, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:23069
                                                     MFA No. 10013 of 2018


              HC-KAR




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                          BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
             MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10013 OF 2018 (MV-D)


             BETWEEN:

             1.    SMT. NOORJAHAN,
                   W/O LATE K AMEER HAMZA @ AMEER,
                   AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
             2.    AHAMAD SHAKIR,
                   S/O LATE K AMEER HAMZA @ AMEER,
                   AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
             3.    MOHAMMED SHAMSHEER,
                   S/O LATE K AMEER HAMZA @ AMEER
                   AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
             4.    MOHAMMED SHASHIR,
                   S/O LATE K AMEER HAMZA @ AMEER,
                   AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
             5.    AYISHA SHAFA,
Digitally          D/O LATE K AMEER HAMZA @ AMEER
signed by          AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
NIRMALA
DEVI         6.    SMT AISAMMA,
Location:          W/O BP AHAMMAD,
HIGH COURT         AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OF
KARNATAKA          APPELLANT NO.3 TO 5 ARE MINORS
                   REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
                   GUARDIAN MOTHER WHO IS
                   APPELLANT NO.1.
                   ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.4-124,
                   SITE NO.109, KRISHNPUR, KATIPALLA
                   MANGALURU, DK DISTRICT - PIN-575007.

                                                                ...APPELLANTS
             (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G.,ADVOCATE)
                             -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:23069
                                       MFA No. 10013 of 2018


 HC-KAR




AND:

1.   MR. HASANABHA,
     S/O SAYYED BEARY,
     AGED 56 YEARS,
     R/AT D NO.2-36/7,
     RAYIKATTE HOUSE, KULOOR POST,
     PUDUKODI VILLAGE,
     MANGALURU,
     DK DISTRICT - PIN-575018.

2.   THE NEW IDNIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
     CITY BRANCH II,
     RAM BHAVAN COMPLEX,
     III FLOOR, MANGALURU,
     DK DISTRICT.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
     PIN-575001.


                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K NAGARAJAIAH.,ADVOCATE FOR R2;
     R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

       THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10/07/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1256/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.


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


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                                               -3-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC:23069
                                                        MFA No. 10013 of 2018


    HC-KAR




                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the claimants under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 challenging the

judgment and award dated 10.07.2018 passed in

MVC.No.1256/2016 by the III Additional District and Sessions

Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, D.K.,

Mangaluru2, seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated

10.07.2018 has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a

compensation of `17,03,500/- together with interest at 6% per

annum. Being aggrieved, seeking for enhancement of

compensation the present appeal is filed.

3. The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and

liability are not under challenge and have attained finality.

Hence, the only aspect to be adjudicated upon in the present

appeal is with regard to the adequacy of compensation

awarded.

Hereinafter referred as to 'Act'

Hereinafter referred as to 'Tribunal'

NC: 2025:KHC:23069

HC-KAR

4. Heard submissions of learned counsel

Sri Ravishankar Shastry G appearing for the appellants -

claimants and learned counsel Sri K Nagarajaiah appearing for

respondent No.2 - insurer.

5. The deceased was aged 51 years on the date of the

accident i.e., 16.07.2016. The Tribunal has applied the

appropriate multiplier '11' which is just and proper.

6. It was averred that the deceased was buying raw

fish, transporting and distributing the same in and around

Mangaluru and Moodabidre cities. It was averred that the

deceased was earning profit of `5,000/- per day. Exs.P10 and

11 have been produced to demonstrate that the raw fish was

being purchased by the deceased. The bank account

statements (Exs.P12 and 13) are produced to show the

financial transactions of the deceased. It is forthcoming from

Ex.P13 that the deceased was paying an Equated Monthly

Installment3 of `13,300/- per month to Sundaram Finance

Limited. The extract of the registration certificate of a Bolero

Hereinafter referred as to "EMI"

NC: 2025:KHC:23069

HC-KAR

maxi truck (Ex.P.14) was produced to demonstrate that the

deceased was owning the said vehicle.

7. The Tribunal noticing the testimony of PW.1 as well

as the exhibits referred to above assessed the income of the

deceased at `500/- per day equivalent to `15,000/- per month.

It is forthcoming that the deceased was paying EMI of

`13,300/- per month. Although, the learned counsel for

respondent No.2 - insurer is justified in contending that the

income tax returns of the deceased was not produced and PW.1

in her cross-examination has deposed that the deceased was

submitting his income tax returns, which was not produced,

having regard to the material available on record it is just and

proper that the income of the deceased is re-assessed as

`20,000/- per month.

8. Having regard to the age of the deceased 10% is

required to be added towards future prospects in terms of the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V/S PRANAY SETHI AND

NC: 2025:KHC:23069

HC-KAR

ORS4. The claimants are six in number being wife, four

children and mother of the deceased. Hence, 1/4th is required

to be deducted towards personal expenses. The loss of

dependency is re-assessed as (20,000/- + 10% - ¼ X 12 X 11)

= `21,78,000/- as against `16,33,500/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

9. Loss of consortium is required to be assessed in

terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V/S

NANU RAM ALIAS CHUBRU RAM AND ORS5, at

`40,000/- for each of the claimants together with increment at

20%. Hence, loss of consortium is re-assessed at

(48,000 X 6) = `2,88,000/- as against `40,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

10. The compensation towards funeral expenses and

loss of estate is to be awarded at `15,000/- each together with

increment at 20%. Hence, compensation of `18,000/- each is

"(2017)16 SCC 680"

"(2018)18 SCC 130"

NC: 2025:KHC:23069

HC-KAR

required to be awarded for the same as against `15,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

11. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation

re-assessed is as follows:

Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Amount awarded Awarded by the by this Court (`) Tribunal (`)

1 Loss of dependency 1633500.00 2178000.00

2 Loss of estate 15000.00 18000.00

3 Loss of consortium 40000.00 288000.00

4 Funeral expenses 15000.00 18000.00

Total 1703500.00 2502000.00

12. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to enhanced

compensation of (`25,02,000/- - `17,03,500/-) = `7,98,500/-.

13. Taking judicial notice of the rate of interest awarded

towards fixed deposits, interest on the enhanced compensation

is awarded as 7% per annum.

14. In view of the aforementioned, the following: