Smt. Zahara Bathul v. Divisional Controller, K S R T C

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024MFA/3275/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal regarding motor vehicle accident compensation, the court enhanced the award from approximately Rs.35.68 lakhs to Rs.41.50 lakhs. The court distinguished prior Division Bench judgments and held that consistent overtime allowances evidenced by pay-slips over three years must be included in income calculations, applying standard multipliers for dependency and love and affection unde

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs.41,50,648/- (after deductions) with interest at 6% per annum directed to be deposited by respondent within eight weeks.

Smt. Zahara Bathul Vs Divisional Controller, K S R T C — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3275 OF 2020(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ZAHARA BATHUL W/O. LATE MOHIDDIN SHARIF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶9

FEEHA SULTHANA D/O. LATE MOHIDDIN SHARIF AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶10

AKHIL SHARIFF S/O. LATE MOHIDDIN SHARIF AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.3260 NES COLONY, BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND MUKRUMPADY, PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 202

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SMT. SUMA K., FOR; SRI V. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATES)

¶16

AND:

¶17

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION MUKRUMPADY, PUTTUR

¶18

DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 202

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶20

NOOR UNNISA W/O. HUSEEN SHARIF AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶21

HUSEEN SHARIF S/O. LATE ABDUL KHADAR AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶22

RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.3260 NES COLONY, BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND HUNSUR TOWN – 571 105

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI F. S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-3 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 20/9/2022)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 50/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, KODAGU, MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

The claimants, being dissatisfied with the

¶32

compensation of Rs.35,68,300/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of one Mohiddin Sharif, are in appeal.

¶33

It is not in dispute that as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.02.2018, Mohiddin Sharif, a 49 year old died.

¶34

The liability of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (“ KSRTC ”) to pay the compensation is also not in dispute.

¶35

The main grievance put forth by the claimants in this appeal is that the pay-slips which were produced indicate that the deceased was consistently getting an overtime pay and this aspect of the matter has been disregarded by the Tribunal on the basis of a ruling of the Division Bench of this Court, which is improper. It is also sought to be contented the

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶37

amount awarded towards loss of consortium would be incorrect.

¶38

Admittedly, the deceased was a driver in KSRTC and the Tribunal has recorded a finding that as on the date of his death, as per Exhibit P-22/pay slip, he was getting a net salary of Rs.25,877/- for the month of January-2018.

¶39

The Tribunal has disregarded the claim for over-time allowance on the basis of the decisions rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Girja¹ and Lalithamma² .

¶40

As far as the judgments of the Division Bench are concerned, it is noticed that it was not a case in which the claimants had pleaded and established that the deceased was consistently getting an over-time allowance. In that view of the matter, the said judgments cannot be relied upon for the proposition

¶41

1 Smt.Girija and another vs. Shivakumar and others, ILR 2009 KAR 979

¶42

2 The Managing Director, KSRTC vs. Lalithamma and others, 2010 ACJ 1018.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶44

that over-time allowance cannot be taken into consideration while computing the monthly income.

¶45

In the instant case, the claimants have produced the pay-slips for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, i.e., for three years preceding the date of the accident. The pay-slips which were produced indicate that for the year 2015, the deceased was drawing an average salary of Rs.28,018/- per month. For the year 2016, he was earning Rs.33,504/- and for the year 2017, he was earning Rs.37,677/-. It is therefore clear that the claimant was consistently getting almost 15% to 20% above his net salary as over-time allowance.

¶46

If the deceased was consistently getting an overtime allowance, it is obvious that the KSRTC was suffering a shortage of drivers and consequently the drivers who were working were asked to work overtime. If this overtime is established to be prevailing for more

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶48

than three years, in my view, this component cannot be disregarded.

¶49

Having taken into consideration that the above sums indicate the average monthly salary, in my view, interest of justice would be served by taking the average monthly income of the deceased as

¶50

Rs.29,000/- .

¶51

As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi³ , as the deceased was aged about 49 years and was on permanent employment, 30 % of the aforesaid salary income (Rs.8,700/-.) is required to be added to it as future prospects and the resultant income would be Rs.37,700/- .

¶52

Since the deceased’s wife and two children were the only dependents, out of the said sum, 1/3^rd of the same (Rs.12,567/-) would have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The net income will be Rs.25,133/- .

¶53

3 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶55

As the deceased was aged 49 years, as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma⁴ , a multiplier of '13’ would have to be applied.

¶56

Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.39,20,748/- (Rs.25,133/- x 12 x '13') towards “ loss of dependency ” .

¶57

As the father is no more, the claimants being the wife, two children and mother, as per Pranay Sethi⁵ , they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “ loss of love and affection ” i.e., in all Rs.1,93,600/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under

¶58

“ conventional heads ” .

¶59

Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums :

¶60

4 Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶61

5 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶63

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Awarded by this Court(In Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	39,20,748/- (Rs.25,133/- x 12 x '13')
2.	Loss of love and affection	1,93,600/-
3.	Conventional Heads	36,300/-
	Total :	41,50,648/-

¶64

Thus, the claimants would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.41,50,648/- as against Rs.35,68,300/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum (as against 9%) from the date of petition till its realization.

¶65

A sum of Rs.15,000/- paid to the claimants as ex gratia and a sum of Rs.6,25,880/- compensation paid under the Employees Compensation Act shall be deducted from the said amount.

¶66

The KSRTC is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded along with interest within a

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:51089 MFA No. 3275 of 2020

¶68

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶69

On such deposit, out of the compensation and interest, 10% of the same is apportioned in favour of the mother; 40% is apportioned in favour of the wife; and 25% each is apportioned in favour of the two children of the deceased.

¶70