Partly allowed

Raziyabi v. Mohammed Akhib

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2021MFA/2168/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claim Appeal, the High Court allowed the appellants' claim for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the father. The Court recalculated income based on Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines, applied the Supreme Court mandates for future prospects and dependency deductions, and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 17,66,208/-.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned judgment was modified to award total compensation of Rs. 17,66,208/- along with interest at 6% p.a.

Raziyabi Vs Mohammed Akhib — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.2168 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1. RAZIYABI

¶11

W/O. NAJRULLA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT GALIBAILU VILLAGE, KENCHANALA POST, HOSANGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 430.

¶12

2. SUHEL

¶13

S/O. NAJRULLA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶14

3. ASIF

¶15

S/O. NAJRULLA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶16

HABIBULLA S/O. NAJRULLA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,

¶17

APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.

¶18

¶19

MUJAVAR ABDUL SATTAR S/O. NABI SAB, AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. HASMATH W/O. MUJAVARA ABDUL SATTAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶21

APPELLANTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.255, PUMPHOUSE KERI, CHORADI VILLAGE AND POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 209.

¶22

...APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

MOHAMMED AKHIB S/O. SHEIK SANAVULLA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. ACHAPUAR VILLAGE AND POST, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶26

ABDUL KHADAR S/O. P. MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HOUSE NO.19/01, NEHARUNAGAR, 7TH MAIN ROAD, SAGAR TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶27

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, S.S. COMPLEX, HRASHA ARCADE, OPPOSITE PETROL BUNK, B.H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶28

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

(NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-2 ARE D/W; R-3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶31

¶32

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.365/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶33

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 24.07.2017 in MVC.365/2017 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶36

¶37

Shivamogga Sitting at Sagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short).

¶38

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 1.10.2016, when Najrulla at about 3.45 p.m. when he was proceeding on his motor cycle to Shivmogga from his house and at about 4.30 p.m. at that time, the 1st respondent drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from opposite side and dashed against Najrulla. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed at the spot.

¶39

The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist and driver by avocation and was earning Rs. 25,000/- p.m. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its

¶40

¶41

driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.60,75,000/- along with interest.

¶42

The insurance company though appeared through its counsel did not choose to file written statement.

¶43

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and two other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence.

¶44

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on

¶45

account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that

¶46

¶47

the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,68,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶48

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the tune of 25% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR

¶49

2017 SC 5157 . It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and

¶50

‘funeral expenses’ are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.

¶51

¶52

The respondent insurer though served with notice has remained absent.

¶53

We have considered the submissions made

¶54

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶55

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that deceased at the time of accident was aged about 42 years and was engaged in agriculture and was also driver by avocation. But however, no evidence is placed on record to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. Therefore, even if notional income of the deceased is assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka

¶56

¶57

Legal Services Authority, notional income comes to Rs. 9,500/- per month.

¶58

In view of the law laid down by the

¶59

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL

¶60

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI

¶61

AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157, 25% of the amount

¶62

has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,875/-. Since, the number of dependents are 6, therefore, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.8,906/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased who was 42 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘14’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.8,906 x 12 x14) i.e., Rs.14,96,208/on account of loss of dependency.

¶63

¶64

In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶65

VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection.

¶66

Thus, the claimants are held entitled to

¶67

Rs.2,40,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to

¶68

a total compensation of Rs.17,66,208/-.

¶69

¶70