Partly allowed

Tofel Khan v. S. Noorullah S/O Mahaboob Sab

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2020MFA/100565/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Adopting a notional income of Rs.7,500, the Court applied a multiplier of 16 and awarded enhanced compensation for dependency, loss of filial consortium, and other heads, partly allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.11,18,000 (including interest), with Rs.8,00,000 released to the father and the balance to the mother via fixed deposit.

Tofel Khan Vs S. Noorullah S/O Mahaboob Sab — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

MFA No.100565/2017 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. TOFEL KHAN,

¶11

S/O SHAMSHUDDIN KHAN,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.42, GONV. VIKRAMPUR,

¶13

THANA NA – 43, JAMTARA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

¶14

DARUL SALAM HOSTEL,

¶15

CANTONMENT, BALLARI.

¶16

SMT. JAMEN BIBI, W/O TOFEL KHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O NO.42, GONV. VIKRAMPUR, THANA NA – 43, JAMTARA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DARUL SALAM HOSTEL, CANTONMENT, BALLARI.

¶17

… APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI.Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI. S. NOORULLAH, S/O MAHABOOB SAB, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF BOLERO JEEP BEARING NO.KA-34/M-7658, R/O TYPE-A, 323, NORTH BLOCK, DONIMALAI, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶22

MAQBOOL BASHA, S/O M.D. ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF BOLERO JEEP BEARING REG. NO.KA-34/M-7658, R/O DOOR NO.53, GOLDSMITH, WARD NO.28, BELAGAL CROSS, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI.

¶23

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., #102, 1ST FLOOR, R.K.COMPLEX, K.C.ROAD, BALLARI.

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MAHE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS D/W)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.02.2016, PASSED IN MVC NO.125/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 – Insurer.

¶31

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal as it involves short point of not adopting appropriate notional income.

¶32

Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.125/2015 by the III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Ballari, (for short “the tribunal”) dated 27.02.2016, the claimants therein have preferred this appeal.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that on 20.12.2014 at about 12 a.m., one Aslam was driving Bolero Jeep bearing No.KA-34/M-7658 and invited the deceased

¶35

- 4 -

¶36

Khamarul Huda and Noorulla, S.M.D.Fayaz, son of the claimants in MVC No.125/2015 to have a tea in Mahadeva Dhaba Hotel, in Bolero Jeep and after having tea while returning, the said Noorullah – respondent No.1 was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, when they reached near Toll Gate, Near Bangalore – Hospet Bypass road, Ballari, on 21.12.2014 at about 1.30 a.m., the respondent No.1 overtook one stationed lorry drove the jeep to the extreme right of the road, at which time, noticing the vehicle coming from opposite side the said Noorullah trying to avoid the oncoming vehicles went and dashed to the stationed lorry, resulting in grievous injuries to the passengers and the death of son of the claimants and S.M.D.Fayaz.

¶37

It is case of the claimants that the deceased son Khamarul Huda was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident and he was officiating as Mulla/Hafiz Sab-Priest in Jamia Masjid and drawing salary of

¶38

¶39

Rs.15,000/- p.m. On these allegations, the appellants sought for compensation of Rs.52,50,000/-.

¶40

The Tribunal after hearing the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record was pleased to award a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- only. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

¶41

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal rejected the income pleaded by the claimants herein and also not adopted the notional income as determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority while assessing the notional income in absence of proof of income which is a thumb rule. The said contention merits consideration.

¶42

It is further contended that the Tribunal has also erred in adopting the multiplier ’11’ which is on the lower side and the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘16’.

¶43

¶44

It is also contended that no compensation has been awarded under the head ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶45

Per contra , learned counsel for the insurer would reiterate the contents and oppose any compensation in addition.

¶46

The short point that arises for determination for disposal of this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

¶47

Thus, in absence of any proven income, the notional income has to be adopted as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident is of the year 2014 and the notional income would be Rs.7,500/- as per the chart. Further, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, reported in 2018

¶48

¶49

ACJ 2782, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of “loss of consortium” and further 40% of the income has to be added to the notional income towards future prospects. In view of the fact that claimants are the parents of the deceased and the deceased being a bachelor, 50% of the total income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992 . Accordingly, claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.7,500 – 50% (personal expenses) + 40% (future prospects) x 12 (month) x 16 (multiplier) = 10,08,000/- towards “loss of dependency”.

¶50

In the light of law laid down in the Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 , claimants would be entitled to further compensation of Rs.80,000/- under the head

¶51

¶52

of ‘loss of filial consortium’ and the sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of ‘loss of estate’. Further, Rs.15,000/is awarded towards ‘transportation of dead body and funeral expenses’. In all, a sum of Rs.11,18,000/is awarded. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are entitled to enhanced sum of Rs.7,03,000/- with interest calculated at the rate of 6% out of the sum of Rs.11,18,000/- a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- shall be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the appellant No.2, mother of the deceased and remaining sum shall be released in favour of appellant No.1 – father of the deceased.

¶53

14. Office to draw decree accordingly.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

MH/-

Tofel Khan v. S. Noorullah S/O Mahaboob Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tofel Khan v. S. Noorullah S/O Mahaboob Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja @ Raju, S/O. Mallappa Jagandabhavi, Vs Vasudevan, S/O: Gnanasampantham

Smt.Mahadevi W/O Veerabhadra Sangati Vs the Divisional Controller

Dayanand S Vernekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Marekka W/O Late Ramanna Vs Mohan Kumar S/O Veeramma

Ningappa S/O Biddappa Haravi, Vs the Divisional Controller

R.R. Hemantanavar Vs the Land Acquisition Officer