Smt Ayisha Vs Mr Vasanth Kumar K

(BY SRI B.A RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI KRISHNAMURTHY.D, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO 6; R-5 AND 6 ARE MINORS REP. BY MOTHER R-4; R-1& 2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶41

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 121/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT & I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

IN MFA.CROB NO. 20/2022

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SURATHKAL D.O, 2ND FLOOR, RAMABHAVANA COMPLEX, KODIYALABAIL, MANGALURU-3, BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶48

...PETITIONER

¶49

(BY SRI B A RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

SMT. AYISHA, W/O LATE MAYYADI @ MAYYADIN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶52

FATHIMATHUL ADILA, D/O.LATE MAYYADI @ MAYYADIN, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

¶53

MOHAMMED ADIL, S/O.LATE MAYYADI @ MAYYADIN, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.

¶54

FATHIMATH AMANA, D/O.LATE MAYYADI @ MAYYADIN, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.

¶55

FATHIMATH AMERA, D/O.LATE MAYYADI @ MAYYADIN, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS.

¶56

FATHIMATH AFEEFA, D/O.LATE MAYYADI @ MAYYADIN, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS.

¶57

APPELLANTS 2 TO 6 MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL

¶58

- 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

GUARDIAN SMT. AYISHA THE FIRST APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL & FIRST RESPONDENT IN CROB.

¶61

MR. AHAMMED, S/O ABUBAKKAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶62

ALIMAMMA, W/O AHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶63

ALL ARE R/AT DOOR NO.1-71-2, SAAG, HALEYANGADY, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.

¶64

MR. VASANTH KUMAR K, S/O MUTHAPPA GOWDA K, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KUMARA KRIPA, KRISHNA NAGAR, PANJA, SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶65

MR. PRASHANTHA, S/O CHANDRA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.7-121-A, NEAR KADIVANA BAGILU, HEJAMADIKODI POST, UDUPI.

¶66

NEBISA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O. LATE MAIYADIN.

¶67

MOHAMMAD UQMUL HAKIM, S/O LATE MAIYADIN, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.

¶68

FATHIMATHUL FARZANA, D/O LATE MAIYADIN,

¶69

6 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.

¶73

RESPONDENT NO.13 MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SMT. NEBISA,THE IV RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL & 11^TH RESPONDENT IN THIS CROB.

¶74

ALL ARE R/AT NO.5-51/(12), AMEMAR HOUSE, PADU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK D.K.

¶75

...RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 8; SRI KRISHNAMURTHY D, ADVOCATE FOR R-11 TO 13; V/O DATED 18.06.2025, NOTICE TO R-9 & 10 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶77

THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 R/W SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.121/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU, D.K, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.16,30,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶78

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

¶79

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶80

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶83

MFA No.4896/2019 is filed by the claimants and MFA Crob No.20/2022 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Mangaluru challenging the judgment and award dated 18.08.2018 passed in MVC No.121/2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short).

¶84

Sri.Ravishankar Shastry.G, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the parents, two wives and children of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest. It is submitted that the deceased was a fisherman by vocation and used to earn more than Rs.30,000/- per month and he was aged about 37 years. It is further submitted that the Tribunal without any reason assessed the income at Rs.12,000/- per month and seeks to re-assess the income appropriately by considering Ex.R10 to R13-original pass of the deceased

¶85

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

issued by Karavali Traditional Fishermen's Sangha. It is submitted that the appropriate deduction would be 1/5^th of the income of the deceased towards the personal and living expenses and the claimants are entitled addition of 40% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects. It is also submitted that the crossobjection filed by the insurance company is not maintainable, as the insurance company has satisfied the award. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross objection.

¶88

Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing

¶89

for the cross-objector submits that the amount is deposited as per the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the insurance company has not deposited the statutory amount while filing the appeal. It is submitted that the claimants have failed to produce any evidence with regard to the income. Hence, the income of the deceased is required to be assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month by considering the notional income chart prepared by

¶90

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and by deducting 1/5^th towards the personal and living expenses. Hence, he seeks to allow the cross objection filed by the insurance company.

¶93

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶94

The material available on record indicates that on 02.11.2016, deceased Maiyadin was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration number KA-19-EK-3846 and due to the negligent act of the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration number KA-21-J-2562, sustained grievous injuries, hence, succumbed to the injuries.

¶95

The claim petition is filed by the first wife and children of the deceased by arraying the second wife, her children and parents as a party to the proceedings. The

¶96

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimants examined PW1 to PW3, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Smt.Ayisha, second wife of the deceased examined herself as RW.1 and got marked documentary evidence. The Tribunal awarded total compensation Rs.16,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by apportioning the compensation between the legal representatives of the deceased.

¶99

7. The contention of the appellant is that the

¶100

deceased was 37 years and all the legal heirs were the dependents of the deceased and he used to earn minimum Rs.30,000/- per month. It is to be noticed that except oral evidence, no documentary evidence is placed before the Tribunal to substantiate the actual income of the deceased. The Tribunal taking note of the vocation of the deceased as per Ex.R10 to Ex.R13 has come to a conclusion that the income of the deceased is required to

¶101

be assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month. In my considered view, the said finding is required to be accepted. It is also

¶102

11 -

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

to be taken note of the fact that as per the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income for the year 2016 would be Rs.9,500/- and the said notional income chart prepared is for the unskilled labour. In the case on hand, the deceased

¶106

was a fisherman by vocation and concerned Society has issued pass to the deceased and they are placed before the Court. Considering the nature of vocation and keeping in mind the dependents of the deceased, I am of the considered view that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.12,000/- is just and appropriate which does not call for any modification. The deceased was aged about 37 years. Hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

¶107

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the assessed income of

¶108

the deceased under the head of loss of future prospects. The dependents of the deceased are 11 in number. Hence,

¶109

12 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expense of the deceased would be 1/5^th and appropriate multiplier would be '15'. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency would be as under:

¶113

Rs.12,000 + 40% X 12 X 15 - 1/5 = Rs.24,19,200/-

¶114

The dependents of the deceased are 11 in

¶115

number i.e., the parents, 2 wives and children. Hence, each of the dependent would be entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- with 10% escalation which would be Rs.44,000 X 11 = Rs.4,84,000/-. The dependents also would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- with 10% escalation that would be Rs.16,500/- and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses would be Rs.15,000/with 10% escalation that would be Rs.16,500/-. The evidence on record indicates that the dependents have spent Rs.5,395/- towards the medical expenses of the deceased as is evident from Ex.R15. Hence, the dependants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,395/- under the head of

¶116

13 -

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

medical expenses. The compensation is re-determined as

¶120

under:

¶121

Sl. No	Description	Amount
1	Loss of dependency	Rs.24,19,200
2	Loss of consortium	Rs.4,84,000
3	Medical expenses	Rs.5395
4	Loss of estate	Rs.16,500
5	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	Rs.16,500
	Total	Rs.29,41,595

¶122

For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to

¶123

pass the following:

¶124

ORDER

¶125

(i) MFA No.4896/2019 is allowed in part .

¶126

(ii) MFA Crob No.20/2022 is dismissed .

¶127

(iii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the dependents of the deceased would be

¶128

14 -

¶129

NC: 2026:KHC:21031 MFA No. 4896 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2022

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.29,41,595/- as against Rs.16,30,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶132

(iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶133

(v) Respondent No.3-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶134

(vi) The apportionment, disbursement of the compensation and deposit shall be as per the Tribunal.

¶135

(vii) Registry to transmit the records forthwith to the Tribunal.

¶136

(viii) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶137

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶138

NS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Smt Ayisha v. Mr Vasanth Kumar K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ayisha v. Mr Vasanth Kumar K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Siddamma Vs Maradashetty

Meenakethan @ G.H.Prasad Vs Smt. Sunitha

Sri. M. Nagaraju Vs Government of Karnataka

Upendra Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Shivu Alias Guddadaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Salma Banu @ Salma Vs State of Karnataka