Partly allowed

Mohammad Sharief v. Jeevandas Adyanthaya

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2022MFA/4351/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court enhanced the award from Rs. 4,57,000 to Rs. 9,43,800. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court recalculated loss of dependency and consortium for two dependents, allowing an increase of Rs. 4,86,800 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation of Rs. 9,43,800, allowing an additional amount of Rs. 4,86,800 along with 6% per annum interest from the date of petition.

Mohammad Sharief Vs Jeevandas Adyanthaya — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4351 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMAD SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O. LATE MOHAMMAD GULAM.

¶9

FAISAL @ MOHAMMAD FAISAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMAD SHARIEF,

¶10

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

BOTH ARE R/O. FAISAL MANZIL, SHIVA NAGARA, BASTI PADPU, NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE, HEJAMADY, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 201.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

JEEVANDAS ADYANTHAYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE N. S. ADYANATHAYA, R/O. VISHAL MOTORS, PULKERI, BYPASS ROAD,

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶18

KARKALA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.

¶19

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MANGALORE, REP: BY ITS NEAREST DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, SRI RAM ARCADE, OPP: HEAD POST OFFICE-UDUPI- 576 201.

¶20

MOHAMMED FAISAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMAD SHARIF, RESIDING NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE, BASTHI PADU, HEJAMADI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 201.

¶21

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISONAL MANAGER, DIVISONAL OFFICE, VIDYAPOORNA COMPLEX, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 201.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI C SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1, R3 & R4-NOTICE ARE DISPENSED WITH DTD. 2.11.2022)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.85/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants, challenging the judgment and award dated 26.03.2018, passed in MVC No.85/2015 by the Court of Addl.Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Udupi seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶31

On 17.10.2014 at about 5.45 p.m., the petitioner in MVC No.86/2015 was driving the auto-rickshaw along with

¶32

6 passengers i.e. petitioners in MVC Nos.82/2015, 84/2015,86/2015,87/2015 and deceased Jameela Begum and deceased Niha S. Sheikh from padubidri towards Karkala. When the said auto reached Mavinakatte of Kedinje Village, the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA20-B-7666 which was coming from Karkala towards Padubidri drove the bus in rash and negligent manner in high speed, though there was a curve and down gradient road and came extreme right side of the road and dashed

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶35

against the auto-rickshaw. As a result of which, the aforesaid petitioners have sustained injuries. However,

¶36

the passengers by name Jameela Begum and Niha S. Sheikh were succumbed to injuries. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation.

¶37

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

¶38

counsels appearing on both sides and perused the records.

¶39

The Tribunal has awarded compensation under

¶40

various heads are as follows:

¶41

Heads of compensation	Rs.
Loss of dependency	3,87,000.00
Loss of estate	15,000.00
Loss of consortium	40,000.00
Funeral expenses	15,000.00
TOTAL	4,57,000.00

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶44

5. The deceased is a woman and the appellants-

¶45

claimants are husband and son of the deceased. It is stated that the deceased was working as beedi roller and earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. and awarded compensation which is on the lower side. The deceased being a woman not only a homemaker but also supporting and maintaining the family by doing the work of beedi roller. The deceased was 55 years old. The accident was occurred in the year 2014 and the notional income of the deceased to be considered at Rs.8,500/- p.m. as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

¶46

Further, as per principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ and considering the age of the deceased, 10% of her monthly income is added

¶47

1reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶48

¶49

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶50

towards ‘Loss of Future Prospects in Life’, and the appropriate multiplier to be taken is 11. Considering the size of the family of deceased, 1/3rd of her income is deducted towards her personal expenses and the remaining 2/3rd is contributed to his family. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ is reassessed and quantified as follows:

¶51

Rs.8,500/- +850/- (10% of 850)x 2/3 x 11x12= Rs.8,22,800/-

¶52

Further, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards ‘Loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.15,000/towards 'loss of estate' totaling to Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. As per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Nanu Ram² , each of the legal dependent of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/-

¶53

2 reported in 2018 SCC online SC 1546

¶54

¶55

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶56

under the head 'loss of consortium' and if 10% is escalated, therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- (Rs.40,000 per person x 2 = 80,000 +8,000 [80,000x10/100] = 88,000/- + 15,000x2 = 30,000+3,000 [30,000x10/100] = 33,000/-) is awarded towards 'loss of consortium' and 'loss of estate and funeral expenses. On other conventional heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no ground for interference. Accordingly, the said heads are kept in tact.

¶57

Thus in all, this Court has awarded the

¶58

compensation under various heads as follows:

¶59

Heads of compensation	Rs.
Loss of dependency	8,22,800.00
Loss of estate	16,500.00
Loss of consortium	88,000.00
Funeral expenses	16,500.00
TOTAL	9,43,800.00

¶60

¶61

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶62

Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for a total enhanced compensation of Rs.9,43,800/- as against Rs.4,57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the appellantsclaimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.4,86,800/- (Rs.9,43,800/- - Rs.4,57,000/-), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶63

9. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. Appeal is allowed in part .

¶66

ii. The judgment and award dated 26.03.2018 passed in MVC No.85/2015 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Udupi is modified to the above extent.

¶67

iii. The appellants-claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,86,800/- (Rs.9,43,800/- - Rs.4,57,000/-), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶68

¶69

MFA No. 4351 of 2018

¶70

iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶71

v. Costs made easy.

¶72

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

SSD

Mohammad Sharief v. Jeevandas Adyanthaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sharief v. Jeevandas Adyanthaya

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

The Manager Vs Sri. Suresh

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Naseemunnissa

Mrs Channamma Vs Mr Ayaykumar P S

Sri Dileepa Vs Sri Subramani Y

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Shahina

Master Yashas Gowda @ Yashas Vs Kumar H.V.