Allowed

Smt Prameela v. Mr Mohammed Soukath

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024MFA/4321/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed enhancement of compensation for a fatal road traffic accident. Holding the deceased, a skilled goldsmith, earned Rs.15,000 per month, the High Court recomputed loss of dependency with 40% future prospects, 1/4 deduction and multiplier 15, enhancing compensation from Rs.11,90,000 to Rs.29,85,000 with 6% interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Prameela Vs Mr Mohammed Soukath — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4321 OF 2021(MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PRAMEELA, W/O LATE RAVI ACHARYA @ RAVISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶8

POORVI R. ACHARYA, D/O LATE RAVI ACHARYA @ RAVISHNAKAR

¶9

APPELLANT NO.2 IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN NEXT FRIEND MOTHER, APPELLANT NO.1 i.e., SMT.PRAMEELA,

¶10

RAMESH ACHARYA, S/O NARAYANA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT.GEETHA W/O RAMESH ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT D NO.1-153/8B, PILAR PRAKASH NAGARA, KOTEKAR POST, SOMESHWARA VILLAGE, MANGALURU D.K.DISTRICT, PIN-575 012.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶17

AND:

¶18

MR. MOHAMMED SOUKATH, S/O ABBAS, ADULT, BUSINESSMAN RESIDING AT D.NO.3-188-3, LOOKMAN MANZIL, MADANI NAGAR, KUTHAR MUNNUR, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-575 017.

¶19

BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KRISHNA PRASAD BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, LALBAGH MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT, PIN-575 003.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 346/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T, AND II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA, 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Heard Sri.Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 insurance company.

¶28

The widow, the fatherless child aged about 04 years by the date of loosing her father, the aged parents who lost their son moved an application claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in total alleging that their bread winner died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 06.12.2018. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru which dealt with the case as MVC No.346/2019, on 19.04.2021 passed an award holding that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.11,90,000/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants are before this Court by way of an appeal.

¶29

The undisputed facts of the case are as under:

¶30

(i) The deceased Ravi Acharya alias Ravishankar (hereinafter be referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity) died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 06.12.2018.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶32

(ii) Respondent No.1 is the insured and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry which is involved in the accident.

¶33

(iii) Appellant No.1 is the wife, appellant No.2 is the minor child, appellant No.3 is the father and appellant No.4 is the mother of the deceased.

¶34

Arguing the matter, Sri.Ravishankar Shastry.G for the appellants contends that the deceased was skilled gold smith and used to prepare gold jewellery. He was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. The appellants produced sufficient proof in respect of the occupation and earnings by the date of accident. However, ignoring the documents filed, the Tribunal making a statement in the impugned order that the appellants failed to establish the occupation, took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month and granted very meager sum as compensation under the head loss of dependency.

¶35

Learned counsel further contends that though the dependents are four in number, the Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd of the earnings which is erroneous. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal totally failed to add any sum towards

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶37

future prospects. Learned counsel thereby seeks to revisit the computation of compensation and to grant the amount claimed. Learned counsel contends that the compensation granted under

¶38

all other heads is also not in accordance with law. Learned counsel thereby seeks to grant the amount claimed.

¶39

Per Contra, the submission that is made by Sri.Ashok N Patil learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellants though produced documents to establish the occupation and earnings of the deceased, failed to examine any individual. Learned counsel states that the appellants thereby failed to establish their version and thus the Tribunal is justified in taking the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶40

In reply to the said submission, learned counsel Sri.Ravishankar Sharty.G contends that even for a labourer, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the Notional Income for the relevant period as Rs.12,500/- per month and here is a case where the deceased is a Goldsmith.

¶41

The appellants produced the certificate issued by the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship to establish the occupation of the deceased. The said certificate

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶43

reveals that deceased successfully cleared the assessment for the job role of hand made gold and gems. The appellants also produced Ex.P18 Bank Passbook. However, as rightly contended by learned counsel Sri.Ashok N Patil, substantive proof with regard to the actual earnings of the deceased by the date of accident is not produced. But, considering the occupation of the deceased i.e., goldsmith, this Court considers to take the income of the deceased as Rs.500/- per day i.e., Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶44

It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged around 36 years by the date of accident. Therefore, 40% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. Also as the dependants are 4 in number, 1/4^th of the earnings are required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive. Further,the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 is '15'. On applying the aforementioned parameters, the compensation which the

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶46

appellants are entitled to under the head loss of dependency will be as under:

¶47

Description	Amount In Rs.
Notional monthly income	15,000-00
Annual Income (15,000X12)	1,80,000-00
Add 40% towards future	252000-00
prospects(1,80,000+40%)	,,
Deduct 1/4^thtowardspersonal and living expenses	1,89,000-00
Apply appropriate multiplier'15'	28,35,000-00

¶48

Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.28,35,000/- under the head loss of dependency.

¶49

Together with the said amount, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Appellant No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/towards loss of spousal consortium. Appellant No.2 being the child of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/towards loss of parental consortium. Appellant Nos.3 and 4 being the parents of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to under different heads is as under:

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶52

Sl No.	Compensation	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of dependency	28,35,000-00
2	Funeral expenses	15,000-00
3	Loss of estate	15,000-00
4	Loss of spousal consortium	40,000-00
5	Loss ofparental consortium	40,000-00
6	Loss of filial consortium	40,000-00
	Total	29,85,000-00

¶53

Thus, the justifiable sum which the appellants are entitled

¶54

to as compensation is Rs.29,85,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is

¶55

disposed of with the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Managluru through orders in MVC No.346/2019 dated 19.04.2021 is enhanced from Rs.11,90,000/- to Rs.29,85,000/-.

¶59

(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶60

(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:38948 MFA No. 4321 of 2021

¶63

(v) The apportionment made by the Tribunal applies to the enhanced sum as well.

¶64

(vi) Appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares out of the enhanced sum immediately on deposit.

¶65

(vii) The amount that falls to the share of appellant No.2 shall be invested in any interest yielding fixed deposit scheme of any nationalized bank till appellant No.2 attains the age of majority.

¶66

(viii) On her attaining the age of majority, she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶67

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶68

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt Prameela v. Mr Mohammed Soukath

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Prameela v. Mr Mohammed Soukath

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Rangamma Vs Smt Kariyamma

Smt. Lalithamma Vs Sri. Santhosh Kumar K G

Smt. Kavitha Basavaraj Uppar Vs Aishwarya Chakraborty

Smt. Rajamma Vs the Manager

Afzal Ahmad Vs Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.