Allowed

K Aboobakker v. Mr Ibrahim D a

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024MFA/3319/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor vehicle accident appeal where High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.3,03,000 to Rs.14,15,052/- applying Pranay Sethi guidelines for loss of dependency, consortium, and funeral expenses for the heirs of the deceased.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.14,15,052/- with interest at 6% p.a., payable by insurer within six weeks, to be apportioned equally among claimants.

K Aboobakker Vs Mr Ibrahim D a — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33971 MFA No. 3319 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3319/2019 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K ABOOBAKKER, S/O K ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 54 YEARS,

¶9

MR IRFAN K @ MOHAMMED IRFAN, S/O K. ABOOBAKKER, AGED 29 YEARS,

¶10

NAZMEEN, D/O K. ABBOBAKKER, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT NOOR MANZIL, 10^TH MILE STONE PADU POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/AT NOOR MANZIL, ULLALA KODI, ULLAL POST, MANGLAURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 012. …APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR. IBRAHIM D.A., S/ O ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-270, DASARAGUDDE HOUSE, SAJIPA MANNUR POST & VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574 219.

¶16

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, INLAND ORNATE, SHOP NO.4 & 5, NAVABHARATH CIRCLE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:33971 MFA No. 3319 of 2019

¶19

POST KODIALBAIL, MANGLAURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 003, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 25.10.2023)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1940/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT & III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Challenging judgment and award dated 11.10.2018 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, D.K., (for short 'Tribunal') in MVC.no.1940/2016, this appeal is filed.

¶27

Sri Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for appellants submitted that appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 25.11.2016, when Smt.Rukiya was on a morning walk on Mangaluru-Bengaluru road, near 10^th Milestone at about 5:30 a.m., a Mahindra Pick up bearing Registration

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33971 MFA No. 3319 of 2019

¶29

no.KA-19-AA-5928, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against her. Though she was taken to hospital for treatment, she succumbed to injuries. At the time of accident, she was 48 years of age, doing tailoring work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Claiming compensation on account of her untimely death, claimants-husband and children filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against owner and insurer of offending vehicle.

¶30

On service of notice, respondents entered appearance, filed written statement and opposed claim petition on all grounds. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 was examined as PW-1 along with two other witnesses as PWs-2 and 3. Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked. Respondent got marked copy of insurance policy with consent as Ex.R1.

¶31

On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative, issues no.2 and 3 in negative and issue no.4 by allowing claim petition in part, determining compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- with interest at rate of 6% per annum and directing respondent no.2 – insurer to pay same. Not satisfied with quantum, claimants were in appeal.

¶32

It was submitted, since deceased was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.15,000/-, Tribunal was not

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33971 MFA No. 3319 of 2019

¶34

justified in taking her monthly income at Rs.7,000/-. Especially, when she had produced Income certificate issued by Saleem Tailors and examined Proprietor as PW-2. It was submitted, Tribunal erred in considering in only 1/4^th of her income for purposes of calculation of loss of dependency. It was submitted, even future prospects was not added. That apart no amount was awarded under conventional heads. Hence, sought for allowing appeal.

¶35

On other hand, Sri Pradeep B., learned counsel for respondent no.2 - insurer sought to oppose appeal. It was submitted, as there was no substantial evidence, Tribunal rightly considered notional income. Further, as claimants no.2

¶36

and 3 had attained age of majority, they could not be considered as dependents. Hence, on overall consideration award was justified.

¶37

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶38

judgment and award.

¶39

From above since only claimants are in appeal for enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is:

¶40

"Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?"

¶41

From above, occurrence of accident due to rash and

¶42

negligent driving of insured vehicle and death of Smt.Rukiya

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33971 MFA No. 3319 of 2019

¶44

in said accident are not in dispute. Tribunal assessed compensation and held insurer liable to pay same. Insurer has not filed appeal. Hence, liability of insurer to pay compensation is not in dispute. Insofar as monthly income, though claimants had produced income certificate as Ex.P11 and examined PW.2 to substantiate same, in absence of any other corroborative material such as work order, payment ledger extracts, balance sheet etc. Tribunal rightly disbelieved income shown in Ex.P11. But, notional income for year 2016 being Rs.9,500/-, Tribunal was not justified in taking it at Rs.7,000/-.

¶45

As per ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Company Limited , reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , as deceased was married, 48 years of age and self employed, future prospects at 25% requires to be added to her income, deduction towards personal expenses would have to be at ‘1/3^rd ’ and multiplier applicable would be ‘13’. Thus, compensation under loss of dependency would be Rs.9,500/- + 25% - 1/3^rd X 12 X 13 = Rs.12,35,052/- .

¶46

As per decision in Pranay Sethi ’ s case (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. , reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 , claimant no.1 would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium while claimants no.2 and 3, Rs.40,000/-

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33971 MFA No. 3319 of 2019

¶48

each towards loss of filial consortium. Apart from same, they

¶49

would also be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and like sum towards loss of estate. Since more than six years have lapsed after decision in Pranay Sethi ’s case (supra) an addition of 10% for every three years has to be made to award under conventional heads. Therefore, total award would be:

¶50

Heads of Compensation	Amount
Loss of dependency	Rs.12,35,052/-
Consortium at Rs.40,000/- each	Rs.1,20,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
Addition of 20% to award under conventional heads	Rs.30,000/-
TOTAL	Rs.14,15,052/-

¶51

Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative

¶52

as above. Consequently, following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. Appeal is allowed ;

¶55

ii. Claimants are held entitled for Rs.14,15,052/- as against Rs.3,03,000/awarded by Tribunal, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit;

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:33971 MFA No. 3319 of 2019

¶58

iii. Respondent no.2 - Insurer is directed to

¶59

deposit same within six weeks; and

¶60

iv. On deposit, same shall be apportioned equally amongst claimants. 50% of apportionment shall be released forthwith. Balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank of claimants’ choice for a period of three years.

¶61

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶62

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

K Aboobakker v. Mr Ibrahim D a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Aboobakker v. Mr Ibrahim D a

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

Sri Raju Vs United India Insurance Co., Ltd.

Sri. P v Balaji Ganes Vs Sri. a G Munivenkata Gowda

Sri Rudresh Vs Sri Annappa B

Sri. Venkataramanappa Vs Sri. Kiran. S

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs K a Narasimhappa

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Surekha