Partly allowed

Kutubudin Aminsab Elur v. Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2019MFA/24901/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal partly and dismissed the second appeal. Regarding the death of the husband (MFA No. 24900), the court enhanced compensation to Rs.5,95,000/- by applying the Pranay Sethi formula for notional income and conventional heads. Regarding the bullock death (MFA No. 24901), the court upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs.53,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.5,95,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. in MFA No.24900. Compensation of Rs.53,000/- in MFA No.24901 upheld.

Kutubudin Aminsab Elur Vs Divisional Manager — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.24900 of 2013 c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.24901 of 2013 (MV)

¶7

IN MFA NO.24900 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJAMA W/O.KUTUBUDDIN ELUR @ YALLORI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & COOLIE R/O. KALADAGI, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(By Sri. SIDDAPPA S SAJJAN, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

DIVISIONAL MANAGER NWKSRTS BELGAUM BUS BEARGING NO. KA 22/F 1668

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(By Smt SHASHIKALA L. DESAI, ADVOCATE )

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.1.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.555 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-I BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

¶17

IN MFA NO.24901 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

¶18

KUTUBUDIN AMINSAB ELUR @ YALLORI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR

¶19

RAJAMA W/O. KUTUBUDDIN ELUR @ YALLORI AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTUER & COOLIE R/O. KALADAGI, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT (By Sri. SIDDAPPA S SAJJAN, ADV.)

¶20

... APPELLANT

¶21

AND:

¶22

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKSRTC BELGAUM BUS BEARING NO. KA 22/F 1668

¶23

... RESPONDENT

¶24

(By SMT SHASHIKALA L. DESAI, ADV. )

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.1.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.556 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-I BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

These appeals are filed by the claimant challenging

¶30

the judgment and award dated 03.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-I, Bagalkot, in MVC Nos.555 of 2009 and 556 of 2009.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2009 Kutubuddin Elur-husband of the claimant was going in his bullock cart along with other coolie workers at about 9.00 am and when they were returning back to their village at Kaladagi in the said bullock cart, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.22/F.1668 came from opposite direction with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said bullock cart. Due to the accident, Kutubuddin and some other coolie persons and the bullocks died and the bullock cart was also damaged. Wife of the deceased Kutubuddin filed claim petitions in MVC No.555 of 2009 seeking compensation for the death of her husband and MVC No.556 2009 seeking

¶32

¶33

compensation for the death of the bullocks and for the damage caused to the bullock cart.

¶34

To establish her claim, she examined herself

¶35

as PW-1 and also examined two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and produced 8 eight documents. On behalf of the respondent, conductor of the bus was examined as RW-1 and marked one document.

¶36

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- to the claimant in MVC No.555 of 2009 and a sum of Rs.53,000/- is awarded in MVC No.556 of 2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.24900 of 2013 contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/per month. But the Tribunal was not justified in taking

¶38

¶39

the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Secondly, he further contended that the tribunal has not granted any compensation towards future prospects. Thirdly, he contended that in view of the law laid down by a Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 SUPREME COURT 5157 that the claimant is entitled for Rs.70,000/- in the category of conventional heads but the Tribunal has granted only Rs.25,000/-. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶40

He further contended that in MFA No.24901 of 2013 with respect to death of two bullocks and the damage caused to the bullock cart is concerned, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.53,000/-, which is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that even though the claimant has claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-

¶42

¶43

per month, the claimant has not produced any

¶44

documents to prove the same. She further contended that on the basis of the evidence of the parties and documents produced by either side, the Tribunal has granted a just and proper compensation. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 15.02.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.22/F.1668 due to which the husband of the claimant and as well as the bullocks died and the cart was also damaged. Even though the claimant has claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, she has not produced any document to establish the same. This Court in catena of decisions, while assessing the notional income is considering the chart prepared by the Lok Adalat. As per the chart, for the accident occurred in the year 2009, notional income is

¶47

¶48

fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, addition of 40%; between 40 to 50 years, addition of 25% and between 50-60, addition of 10% of established income has to be made. In the case on hand, at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anoth er, reported in (2009) 6 SC 121 , 25% of income has to be added. Hence, 25% of Rs.5,000/- comes to Rs.1,250/and notional income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,250/per month. Hence, loss of dependency would be reassessed as below:

¶49

6250/2=3,125x12x14=5,25,000

¶50

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶51

in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional

¶52

¶53

heads: i.e., Rs.15,000/- each under the head loss of

¶54

estate and towards funeral and transportation expenses.

¶55

Accordingly, MFA No.24900 of 2013 is allowed in

¶56

part. The judgment and award dated 03.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-I, Bagalkot, in MVC

¶57

Nos.555 of 2009, is modified as under:

¶58

1	Loss ofdependency		5,25,000/-
2	Funeralexpenses		15,000/-
3	Loss of estate		15,000/-
4	Loss ofconsortium		40,000/-
		Total	5,95,000/-

¶59

The claimant is entitled to reassessed compensation

¶60

of Rs.5,95,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶61

MFA No.24901 of 2013, the Tribunal based on the deposition of the claimant and also on the basis of Exs.P7 and P-8, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.53,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Therefore,

¶62

¶63

this court does not find any error in the compensation granted by the Tribunal.

¶64

Accordingly, MFA No.24901 of 2013 stands

¶65

dismissed.

¶66

SD/JUDGE

¶67

Kmv

Kutubudin Aminsab Elur v. Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kutubudin Aminsab Elur v. Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Naik S/O Seena Naik Vs Siddappa Adavi S/O Parasappa Adavi

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri.Mahabasha Alias Sanna Mahabasha

Krishna Naik S/O. Seena Naik Vs Siddapa Adavi S/O. Parasappa Adavi

Shri.Lagamanna Vs Shri.Prakash @ Paresh

Sharanappa S/O Basappa Mudhol, Vs Prakash S/O Mahadevappa Bhojedar

V Gopalakrishna S/O Sarvagnashetti, Vs Ganesh @ Ganapathi S/O. Fomanaik