Smt Mustari Begum Vs Sri Kifayathulla Khan M.K.H.S Umesh

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.44/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT, KODAGU MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:6469 MFA No. 7267 of 2018

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

The validity of the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kodagu at Madikeri in MVC No.44/2017 dated 20.06.2018 is under challenge.

¶27

This is a claimant's appeal.

¶28

Heard Ms.Suma.K who represented Sri.Padmanabha Kedilaya learned counsel on record for the appellants and Sri.Anup Seetha Rama Rao who represented Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao learned counsel on record for respondent No.3.

¶29

On the ground that their son Jakeer (hereinafter be referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity) died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.02.2017, the appellants filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.23,90,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.9,66,500/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

¶31

the deceased was a mechanic by profession. He was working as

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:6469 MFA No. 7267 of 2018

¶34

sales executive at Bajaj Show Room, Bylukuppe. He was also attending his work as mechanic in the same show room. As sales executive, he was getting Rs.6,500/- per month as salary. He was also earning Rs.10,000/- per month as mechanic. Sufficient proof through oral and documentary evidence was produced to establish the occupation and income of the deceased by the date of accident. However, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month and thereby awarded meager sum as compensation unjustifiably. Learned counsel also stated that the Tribunal did not even add future prospects which is against the mandate of law. Learned counsel thereby sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶35

The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.3 is that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.16,500/- per month both as sales executive and mechanic by the date of accident. Learned counsel, however, stated that future prospects ought to have been added by the Tribunal.

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:6469 MFA No. 7267 of 2018

¶38

Besides examining PW3, the employer of the deceased, the appellants also produced Ex.P11 and Ex.P16salary certificates. However, though the occupation of the deceased was established, the appellants failed to establish the exact earnings of the deceased in clear terms by the date of accident. Considering the fact that for the relevant period i.e., for the year 2017, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the Notional Income as Rs.11,000/- per month for settlement of claims, this Court considers desirable to adopt the said figure as sought for by learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.11,000/- per month, adding 40% towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the deceased being aged about 21 years by the date of accident, deducting 50% of the earnings towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive, as the deceased died as bachelor and applying the multiplier '18' as per the decision of the of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6469 MFA No. 7267 of 2018

¶40

Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the compensation which the appellants are entitled under the head 'loss of dependency' is as under:

¶41

Description	Amount In Rs.
Notional monthly income	11,000-00
Annual Income (11,000X12)	1,32,000-00
Add 40% towards future prospects(1,32,000+40%)	1,84,800-00
Deduct 50% towards personal and living expenses	92,400-00
Loss of dependency, on applying appropriate multiplier'18'	16,63,200-00

¶42

Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,63,200/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. Together with the said amount, the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to is as under:

¶43

Sl	Compensation	Amount
No.		in Rs.
1	Loss of dependency	16,63,200-00
2	Funeral expenses	15,000-00

¶44

7 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:6469 MFA No. 7267 of 2018

¶46

3	Loss of estate	15,000-00
4	Loss of filial consortium	40,000-00
	Total	17,33,200-00

¶47

The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded

¶48

a sum of Rs.9,66,500/- only as compensation. However, in the light of the forgoing discussion, it is clear that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.17,33,200/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kodagu at Madikeri through orders in MVC No.44/2017 dated 20.06.2018 is enhanced from Rs.9,66,500/- to Rs.17,33,200/-.

¶52