PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs SHRI M R SEETHARAM

Before: SMT. G. KOMALA,

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.285 OF 2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. G. KOMALA, W/O. LATE GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. G. THOJS, S/O. LATE C.V. GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 3. G. MITHUN, S/O. LATE C.V. GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 4. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA, S/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT K.G. HALLI, TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SALEM) LTD., Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016 NO.12, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD, SALEM-7, TAMIL NADU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BOPPANNA B., ADVOCATE AND SRI. SATHEESH H.K., ADVOCATE )

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.15 PASSED IN MVC NO.438/14 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, MALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Smt.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. Though Sri.Bopanna and Sri.Satheesh H.K. are on record representing the respondent, learned counsel failed to make their appearance.

Aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malur, through orders in MVC No.438/2014 dated 17.10.2015, the claimants therein are before this Court by way of appeal.

The first appellant being the wife, appellants 2 and 3 being the children and appellant No.4 being the father of the

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016 deceased C.V. Gopalappa (hereinafter be referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity) filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- in total on the ground that the deceased died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.07.2011. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.18,22,875/- as compensation. However, projecting that they are entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is filed.

Smt.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, arguing on merits of the case, contended that the deceased as an agriculturist, by doing real estate business and through running a Trust was earning Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.11,00,000/- per annum. Learned counsel states that though sufficient proof was produced in respect of the earnings of the deceased and though the Tribunal exhibited its opinion in the impugned order that the over all income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, however, ultimately took the income of the deceased as Rs.1,74,110/- unjustifiably. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal thereby awarded meager sum as compensation. In that regard, learned counsel placed much reliance upon Exs.P9 and P10- acknowledgements issued by Income Tax Department.

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016 5. As per the contents of Ex.P9, for the assessment year 2009-2010, the gross total income in respect of the deceased is shown as Rs.2,21,316/-. The deductions under Chapter-VIA is shown as Rs.47,204/- and thereby total income is indicated as Rs.1,74,110/-. Basing on the contents of Ex.P9, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,74,110/- per annum. However, a meticulous perusal of contents of Ex.P9 goes to show that the deductions under Chapter - VIA are LIC premium to a tune of Rs.5,828/-, housing loan repayment to a tune of Rs.8,376/- and tuition fee to an extent of Rs.33,000/-, totally Rs.47,204/-. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants such deductions made for assessment of income tax should not be considered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Also it is shown that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- more as agricultural income. Therefore, as rightly pleaded by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court considers desirable to take the income of the deceased as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum.

By all the evidence produced it is clear that the deceased was aged about 53 years by the date of accident.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016 Therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 10% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. The dependants are admittedly four in number. Therefore, 1/4th 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 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592. Further more, the multiplier to be applied is '11'. Therefore, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to under the head loss of dependency is as under: Description Amount Rs. Annual income 2,00,000-00 Add 10% towards future prospects (2,00,000+10%) 2,20,000-00 On deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses 1,65,000-00 Loss of dependency, on applying the appropriate multiplier '11' (1,65,000x11) 18,15,000-00

Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.18,15,000/- under the head loss of dependency.

- 6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016

Together with the said amount, the appellants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The first appellant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, appellants No.2 and 3 being children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium, appellant No.4 being the father of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Therefore, the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to is as under: Sl. No Heads of compensation Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 18,15,000-00 2 Funeral expenses 15,000-00 3 Towards loss of estate 15,000-00 4 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000-00 5 Loss of parental consortium 40,000-00 6 Loss of filial consortium 40,000-00 Total 19,65,000-00

Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malur, through orders in MVC

- 7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016 No.438/2014 dated 17.10.2015

is enhanced from Rs.18,22,875/- to Rs.19,65,000/-.

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 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 by the Tribunal applies to the enhanced sum as well.

vi) On deposit, appellants No.1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. SHRI M R SEETHARAM