Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46071 MFA No. 586 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. MEHARUNNISA, W/O. LATE MUSTAK AHMED @ MUSTQ AHMD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. AYAAN AHMED, S/O. LATE MUSTAK AHMED @ MUSTQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. AARISH AHMED, S/O LATE MUSTAK AHMED @ MUSTQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.2 AND 03 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER MEHARUNNISA. 4. MRS.SHAKIRA BANU, W/O MR.B.AHMD @ AHMED BAILOOR, AGED 69 YEARS, 5. MR. B. AHMED @ AHAMED BAILOOR S/O LAT ABDUL REHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT ASMA COTTAGE, NEAR BALIGA HOSPITAL V.M.NAGAR KUNJIBATTU UDUPI-576 102. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46071 MFA No. 586 of 2022 AND: 1. MR. SOUNDARYA RAJAN, S/O MR.A SANJIVI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.1617, R2, SALEM MAIN ROAD, SANKAGIRI TOWN AND TALUK-637301 SALEM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OPP: HEAD POST OFFICE, SRI RAM ARCADE, UDUPI - 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.198/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.Phaneendra, learned counsel who represents Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46071 MFA No. 586 of 2022 2. The first appellant being the wife, appellants No.2 and 3 being the children, appellant No.4 being the mother and appellant No.5 being the father of the deceased Mustaq Ahmed (hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased' for brevity) who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.09.2016 filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,75,00,000/- in total. 3. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udupi which dealt with the matter as MVC No.198/2017 rendered orders on 06.02.2020 awarding a sum of Rs.1,17,55,000/- as compensation. Projecting that they are entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is filed. 4. The only ground projected and urged by Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the income of the deceased by the date of accident. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.6,92,416/- which is improper. Learned counsel placing reliance upon the evidence of PW2 and Exs.P15 to P17 Pay slips contends that the annual income taken by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculating compensation is wrong.
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46071 MFA No. 586 of 2022 5. The submission that is made by Sri.Phaneendra who is representing respondent No.2 on the other hand is that the findings of the Tribunal are valid in all aspects. 6. The deceased died in the month of September, 2016. By the contents of Ex.P17 pay slip pertaining to the month of August, 2016, it is clear that the basic salary of the deceased was Rs.27,518/- and that he was getting Rs.16,500/- towards House Rent Allowance, Rs.700/- towards advance bonus, Rs.1,600/- towards conveyance allowance, Rs.11,100/- towards night shift allowance and Rs.14,950/- towards personal pay. In total, the earnings of the deceased was Rs.72,368/-. By deducting the night shift allowance of Rs.11,100/-, the Tribunal took the salary of the deceased as Rs.61,268/- and on deducting income tax payable, held that the total income of the deceased per year was Rs.6,92,416/- On adding 50% of the said income towards future prospects, the Tribunal proceeded with calculation of compensation which the appellants are entitled to under the head loss of dependency and ultimately awarded a sum of Rs.1,16,84,520/- under the said head. The reasoning given by the Tribunal for arriving at such a figure is proper and therefore no interference is required.
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46071 MFA No. 586 of 2022 7. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of consortium. However, here is a case where the claimants are wife, children and parents of the deceased. Therefore, the wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of spousal consortium', the children are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of parental consortium' and the parents are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of filial consortium'. Therefore, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of consortium is Rs.80,000/-. Except such enhancement, there are no other grounds to make further addition to the sum that is granted by the Tribunal. 8. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udupi, through orders in MVC No.198/2017 dated 06.02.2020 is enhanced by Rs.80,000/-.
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46071 MFA No. 586 of 2022
iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
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.
v) The apportionment made applies to enhanced sum as well. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59