Partly allowed

Smt. Mumtaj Begum v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2022MFA/2072/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded to the legal heirs of a deceased victim. The Court modified the calculation of loss of dependency and future prospects and adjusted consortium and funeral expenses based on precedent, while reducing the interest rate from 8% to 6%.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 44,63,400/- with interest at 6% p.a.; liability fixed on Respondent No. 1 for deposit.

Smt. Mumtaj Begum Vs the Managing Director — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2072/2016 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MUMTAJ BEGUM W/O LATE DILEEPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶9

MR S D NADEEM S/O LATE DILEEPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

¶10

MASTER S D ARIF S/O LATE DILEEPA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

¶11

APPELLANT NO.3 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1^ST APPELLANT

¶12

SMT. MUMTAJ BEGUM.

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.467, HEBBAGODI, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, MUNIVENKATAMMA HOUSE TO SRINIVASA CINEMA TO KERE KATTE AREA, BENGALURU – 560 158

¶14

… APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.N.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K S R T C CENTRAL OFFICES

¶18

¶19

SHANTHI NAGAR, DOUBLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, (RC OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REGN NO.KA-40/F-837)

¶20

MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O SHARFUDDIN SAB, MAJOR, PROP:SAMFRARS ENTERPRISES, NO.152, 2^ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, BOMMASANDRA, OPP. SKF BEARING FACTORY, BENGALURU – 560 099

¶21

BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.30, PRIDE QUADRA, 3^RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU – 560 024

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(SRI. SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE R3; R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN M.V.C.NO.146/2014 AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DARTED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.146/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-8) BE MODIFIED BY GRANTING COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION AND THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

2. This is petitioners appeal for enhancement.

¶30

For sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶31

FACTS: Petitioners are the wife and sons of deceased Dileepa. It is their case that on 12.09.2013 at about 2.15 a.m, deceased Dilipa along with Begum Bee and driver were proceeding in car bearing registration No. KA 51/MB 6524 from Ballari to Bengaluru. It was driven by driver Chandrappa. When the vehicle reached Ganna Nayakanahalli Gate on State Highway NH-19, driver of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA 40/F 837 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), came from the opposite side in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the car. As a result of the accident, the car turned turtle and all the occupants died on the spot suffering grevious injuries.

¶32

¶33

4.1 Petitioners being the wife and sons of the deceased were dependent on his earnings, they are entitled for the compensation. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 43 years. He was running a grocery shop and earning Rs.1,00,000/p.m. Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.

¶34

Respondent No.1 though admit that it is the owner of the offending vehicle in question and on the date of accident, the vehicle was plying from Bengaluru to Sindhanur via Hiriyur and accident occurred at Gunna Nayakanahalli Gate, it has denied that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has contended that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of the car in question. It has denied the age, occupation, income of the deceased. It has also contended that the owner and insurer of the car is also a necessary party.

¶35

5.1 In view of the specific defence taken by respondent No.1, petitioners have subsequently impleaded the owner and insurer of car bearing registration No.KA 51/MB 6524.

¶36

¶37

After due service of notice they have appeared.

¶38

Respondent No.2 has filed the written statement denying that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the driver of the car in question. It is the driver of the offending vehicle in question who is responsible for the accident and as such respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation and sought for dismissal of the petition against him.

¶39

Respondent No.3 being the insurer of the car has also filed written statement admitting that the car in question was covered by a valid policy issued by it. However, since the driver of the offending vehicle was the root cause for the accident, it is respondent No.1 who is liable to pay the compensation and sought for dismissal of petition against it.

¶40

MVC.No.146/2014 was clubbed with

¶41

MVC.No.6176/2013 which was a petition arising out of the same accident and common evidence has been led in.

¶42

On behalf of petitioners, two witnesses are examined as PWs-1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to P30 are marked on their behalf. On the other hand the driver of the offending vehicle is examined as

¶43

¶44

RW-1 and one witness on behalf of respondent No.3 is examined as RW-2. No documents are marked on behalf of respondents.

¶45

Vide the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal

¶46

has partly allowed the petition and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.38,05,720/- and fastened the liability on respondent

¶47

No.1. The details of the compensation granted are as below:

¶48

Heads	Amount In Rs.
Loss of dependency	34,50,720
Loss of consortium	1,00,000
Loss of love and affection and care taker	2,20,000
Loss of estate	10,000
Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	25,000
TOTAL	38,05,720

¶49

Respondent No.1 has not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

¶51

Through this appeal, petitioners are seeking enhancement of the compensation contending that the Tribunal

¶52

¶53

has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,59,720/p.a. as against Rs.4,90,000/-. The Tribunal has erred in not granting compensation under the head future prospects as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma’s case. The interest awarded at the rate of 6% p.a. is on the lower side.

¶54

In view of the specific grounds urged by the

¶55

petitioners, it is to be examined whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or it calls for interference by this Court.

¶56

Since respondent No.1 has not challenged the findings of the Tribunal that accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle has attained finality. Therefore, the only issue involved is to determine whether the compensation granted is just and reasonable.

¶57

Loss of dependency: The date of accident is 12.09.2013. Based on the post mortem report, the age of the deceased is held to be 43 years, which is also the case of the petitioners. Petitioners have established that the deceased was running a grocery shop. On the basis of the income tax returns

¶58

¶59

filed by the petitioners, after deducting the income tax payable, the Tribunal has rightly held the annual income of the deceased as Rs.3,69,720/-. I find no reason to interfere with the said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Since the deceased was aged 43 years, the multiplier 14 chosen by the Tribunal is correct. Petitioners being wife and children of the deceased, three in number, the Tribunal has rightly held that 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. By taking the annual income of the deceased as Rs.3,69,720/- by deducting 1/3^rd and taking 14 as the multiplier, the Tribunal has arrived at loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.34,50,720/-.

¶60

However, the Tribunal has not granted compensation under the head loss of future prospects, as required by the decision in Sarala Verma’s case. Since the deceased was aged 43 years and was doing private business, 25% of his income is to be added towards loss of future prospects. 25% of 3,69,720 comes to Rs.92,430. Therefore, the loss of annual income is to be taken as Rs.3,69,720 + 92,430 which comes to Rs.4,62,150/. Out of this 1/3^rd is to be deducted towards the personal and

¶61

¶62

living expenses of the deceased and 2/3 is to be taken into consideration for calculating the loss of dependency i.e., 4,62,150 x 14 x 2/3^rd = Rs.43,13,400/-. Thus, under the head loss of dependency the petitioners are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs,43,13,400/- as against Rs.34,50,720/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶63

Loss of consortium: Since the petitioners are the wife and two sons of the deceased, under the head loss of consortium, they are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- each as per the decision of the Pranay Seti’s case. However, the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,20,000/- under the head loss of love and affection and care taker two petitioners Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, it is required to be restricted to Rs.1,20,000 under the head loss of spousal consortium to petitioner No.1 and filial consortium to petitioners Nos.2 and 3 as against Rs.3,20,000/granted by the Tribunal.

¶64

Funeral expenses: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head

¶65

¶66

transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. However, as per the Pranay Seti’s case, when substantial compensation is granted under the head loss of dependency, under the conventional head of funeral expenses a sum of Rs.15,000/- is to be granted which includes transportation expenses also. Therefore, under this head Rs.15,000/- is granted as against Rs.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶67

Loss of estate: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head. However, as per the decision of the Pranay Seti’s case, petitioners are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/under this head and therefore, the same is increased to Rs.15,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶68

Thus, in all petitioners are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.44,63,400/- as against Rs.38,05,720/- granted by the Tribunal, as detailed below:

¶69

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Loss of dependency	34,50,720	43,13,400
Loss of consortium	1,00,000	40,000

¶70

¶71

Towards loss of love and affection and care taker	2,20,000	80,000 (Loss of filial consortium)
Loss of estate	10,000	15,000
Transportation of	25,000	15,000
dead body and		(Funeral
funeral expenses		expenses)
TOTAL	38,05,720	44,63,400

¶72

The Tribunal has granted interest at 8% p.a. without

¶73

any basis. Therefore, it is reduced to 6% p.a. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶76

(ii) Appellants/petitioners are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.44,63,400/as against Rs.38,05,720/- granted by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited).

¶77

(iii) Respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶78

¶79

(iv) Registry shall transmit the trial court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

Smt. Mumtaj Begum v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mumtaj Begum v. the Managing Director

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

Smt. Mangallamma Vs the Managing Director

Nagaraju Vs the Managing Director

The State through Adarsh Nagar Police Station Vs Akalak Ahamed S/O Allabax Mulla and Ors.

Kum Usha Vs Sri Arun Kumar

Mr. Jayanth Vs Mr. M a Abdul Kunhi

M/S v K Coir Industries Vs v.K.Venkatesh