RAHAMATHUNNISA v. VENKATESHAPPA S.L

(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 09.01.2025) …RESPONDENTS GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5339 MFA No. 7357 of 2023 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.60/2017 DT.19.06.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI, BY ENHANCING COMPENSATION FROM RS.7,54,500/- TO 20,00,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMS FIT, THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19th June 2019 passed in MVC.No.60/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chintamani (for short ‘the tribunal’).

#2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

#3. It is the case of the appellants - claimants that on

7.3.2017 at about 9.45 p.m. while the deceased Maqsood was moving towards Chinnasandra village on his two wheeler, at that time a tractor bearing registration No.KA- 07-T-9264/9265 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his two wheeler, due to which he sustained - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5339 MFA No. 7357 of 2023 grievous injuries all over his body and he was immediately shifted to the Government hospital, Chintamani and thereafter to NIMHANS hospital, Bengaluru for better treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries on

9.3.2017. The claimants, who are the mother and brother of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent.

#4. The respondent filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition except admitting the accident and involvement of the vehicle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

#5. On the basis of the material evidence, both oral documentary, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,54,500/- alongwith interest at 9% per annum and directed the respondent - insurance company to pay the compensation.

#6. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5339 MFA No. 7357 of 2023

#7. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased assessed by the tribunal is on the lower side. The tribunal has also committed an error in not awarding future prospects and the compensation awarded under various heads is not in accordance with the material on record. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation.

#8. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent – insurance company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference.

#9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5339 MFA No. 7357 of 2023

#10. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and death having occurred due to the road traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against driver of the offending tractor.

#11. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is stated that the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of '18', which does not call for interference and the same is retained. It is also seen that no material is placed before the Court with regard to proof of income. In the absence of the same, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas the Legal Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of Rs.11,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2017. Accordingly, Rs.11,000/- is taken as income in the present case. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5339 MFA No. 7357 of 2023

#12. In view of the fact that the deceased was aged less than 40 years, 40% would have to be added towards future prospects and 50% would have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as he was unmarried. Therefore, the income shall be taken as Rs.7,700/- (Rs.11,000/- + 40% - 50%). Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.16,63,200/- (Rs.7,700/- x 12 x 18) as against Rs.6,48,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

#13. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained.

#14. The Tribunal awarded Rs.36,500/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the actual bills produced by the claimants, which does not call for interference.

#15. In view of the above, the appellants - claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,69,700/- as against Rs.7,54,500/- awarded by the tribunal, as mentioned in the table below: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5339 MFA No. 7357 of 2023 Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1 Loss of dependency Rs.16,63,200-00 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000-00 3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000-00 5 Medical expenses Rs. 36,500-00 Total Rs.17,69,700-00

#16. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 19th June 2019 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.60/2017, is modified. iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,69,700/- as against Rs.7,54,500/- awarded by tribunal. iv) The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5339 MFA No. 7357 of 2023 amount of Rs.7,54,500/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest at 6 % per annum by the respondent no.2 - insurance company. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 786 days. v) The enhanced compensation shall be paid by the respondent no.2 - insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimants upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification. vii) All other terms with regard to deposit, apportionment release compensation amount, are retained. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9