Tanveer D Alias Tanveer Ahamed Vs Gopala

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND INTEREST AGAINST THE INTEREST AWARDED UNDER THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.369/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-VI, DAVANAGERE AND PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶33

This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 27.11.2023 in MVC No.369/2020 passed by the II Additional

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40419-DB MFA No. 3092 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-VI at Davanagere, (‘Tribunal’, for short) whereby, the Tribunal partly allowing the claim petition awarded compensation of Rs.16,84,000/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as against Rs.58,25,000/- with interest at the rate 12% per annum in respect of death of deceased Rubiya Khanum, wife of appellant herein.

¶37

The parties shall be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal for easy reference.

¶38

The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death of Rubiya Khanum and the liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute in this appeal is over the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

Heard Sri.A.Hanumanthappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Vide order dated 10.09.2024, notice of this appeal to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40419-DB MFA No. 3092 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Sri.A.Hanumanthappa, vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider future prospects to the existing income of the deceased and so also failed to award proper compensation under the head ‘spousal consortium’. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’, so also not considered the case to award 10% escalation/enhancement on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3^rd of income instead of 50% towards personal expenses as she was married. Further, he has contended that the compensation awarded towards death of unborn baby at Rs.1,50,000/- is meager and requires enhancement. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶43

Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Ravi S. Samprathi, supports the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that in the absence of any proof or income, the

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40419-DB MFA No. 3092 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Tribunal has taken Rs.14,500/- per month, fixed under the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority, for the year 2020. Further states that, the Tribunal awarded appropriate compensation after deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses. Hence, the award does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,

¶48

perused the material on record. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows:

¶49

“Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit the expression ‘just and reasonable compensation’?

¶50

Our answer to the above point is partly in Affirmative for the following reasons:

¶51

It is not in dispute that the deceased was 27 years as on the date of death. Accordingly, the multiplier applicable is ‘17’. In the absence of any proof of income, Tribunal has correctly taken income at Rs.14,500/- per month, as per the chart supra . Since the appellant is the only claimant, the

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40419-DB MFA No. 3092 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Tribunal deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses, which is just and proper and does not require any interference. Insofar as compensation awarded towards death of unborn baby at Rs.1,50,000/-, the learned counsel for the appellant has not produced any material before us to seek enhancement of the same. In the absence of the materials so also the grounds, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has appropriately considered the case and awarded Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of death of unborn baby, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶55

Insofar as ‘loss of dependency’ is concerned, we find force in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Tribunal having considered the age of the deceased ought to have added 40% towards future prospectus to the existing income and the compensation awarded under ‘spousal consortium’ ought to have been Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/-. So also the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation under the head ‘loss

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40419-DB MFA No. 3092 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

of estate’ which requires re-consideration. Further, the petitioner is entitled for 10% enhancement on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. On re-determination, the loss of dependency, works out to:

¶59

Details for Co	mputation of	Loss of Dependency
MonthlyIncome		14,500
Addition towards Future Prospects	40%	5,800
Monthly Income + FutureProspects		20,300
Annual Income		2,43,600
Deduction Towards personal expenses	50%	1,21,800
Multiplicand (After Deduction towards personal expenses)		1,21,800
Multiplier	17
Loss of Dependency		20,70,600

¶60

The Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation towards ‘spousal consortium’ to the appellant at Rs.25,000/-. Hence, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded along with 10% escalation (1 term of three years) . The accident is of the year 2020. The first three years must be between 2017-2020. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 10%).

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40419-DB MFA No. 3092 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

The Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. There shall be an escalation of 10% on the conventional heads for three years. Taking into consideration of the same, the compensation awarded by towards ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’ being Rs.30,000/-, 10% escalation works out to Rs.3,000/-. The appellant/claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.33,000/- .

¶64

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,908/-

¶65

towards ‘Medical Expenses’, which is as per medical bills and does not call for any interference.

¶66

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶67

Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘death of unborn baby’, does not call for any interference, in the absence of any material for higher compensation as contended.

¶68

In summary, the total compensation re-

¶69

determined by this Court under various heads is as follows:

¶70

Loss of Dependency : Rs. 20,70,600/-

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40419-DB MFA No. 3092 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

2.	Loss of spousal consortium	:	Rs.	44,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	:	Rs.	16,500/-
4.	Funeral expenses	:	Rs.	16,500/-
5.	Medical expenses	:	Rs.	14,908/-
6.	Death of unborn baby	:	Rs.	1,50,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	23,12,508/-

¶74

The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.23,12,508/rounded off to Rs.23,13,000/- as against Rs.16,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,29,000/- (Rs.23,13,000 – Rs.16,84,000) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from today.

¶75

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:40419-DB MFA No. 3092 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶81

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.369/2020, dated 27.11.2023, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-VI at Davanagere, is modified;

¶82

iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,29,000/(Rs.23,13,000 – Rs.16,84,000) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization;

¶83

iv) The enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest supra shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, within eight weeks from today before the concerned Tribunal;

¶84