IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN M.F.A. No.7135/2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ASYESHA TABASSUM W/O. MEHABOOB PASHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. SRI MEHABOOB PASHA S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. MISBA TANEEM D/O. MEHABOOB PASHA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 4. MOHAMMED FARMAN D/O. MEHABOOB PASHA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, THE APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND BY 1ST APPELLANT ASYESHA TABASSUM W/O. MEHABOOB PASHA.
RESIDING AT GOODSHED COLONY, SHANTHINAGARA, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR – 572 101. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SUNDAR RAJAN S/O. PADMANABHAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.1/4, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BALAJINAGAR, THARAPADEVUDU, KATAPADI TQ., VELLORE DISTRICT – 632 001.
2. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ISSUED AT KATAPADI, VELLORE DISTRICT – 632 001.
SERVICE ADDRESS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BARLANE ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 22/03/2019) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC.NO.600/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. The claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and award of the II Addl. District Judge and MACT at Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for the sake of brevity), dated 24/10/2017 on the question of quantum of compensation only.
3. The appellant/claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation on account of death of Mujeeb Ur Rehman in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29/04/2016.
4. According to the claimants, on the said date at about 11.45 p.m. deceased Mujeeb Ur Rehman and his friend Azgar were proceeding on two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-06/EN-7907, which was being driven by Mujeeb Ur Rehman. When they were proceeding opposite Heerehalli railway station, on NH-48, Tumakuru, when a lorry bearing registration No.TN-41/AL-6057 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction dashed against the motorcycle, as a result, Mujeeb Ur Rehman sustained grievous injuries and fell down. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tumakuru, wherein he was administered first aid and thereafter shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, where he died.
Subsequently, the dead body was shifted to Tumakuru, where post-mortem examination was conducted and the body was taken to his native village by hiring a taxi for performing funeral rites. Contending that deceased Mujeeb Ur Rehman was hale and healthy and was pursuing his second year Civil Diploma Engineering course and was working in a fabrication store and drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, his parents and sister contended that they had suffered mental shock, agony and penury on account of death of Mujeeb Ur Rehman. Hence, they sought compensation on account of the death of Mujeeb Ur Rehman.
5. In response to the claim petition, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex parte, while respondent No.2/insurer appeared through its counsel and filed its independent statement of objections denying the material averments made in the claim petition and contended that respondent No.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the insurance company sought dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN.41.AL.6057 by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioners further prove that, as a result of the said accident deceased Mujeeb Ur Rehman sustained injuries and died?
(iii) Whether respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the said vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN.41-AL.6057 was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident?
(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation and if so, by how much and from whom?
(v) What order?
7. In support of their case, the mother of the deceased Mujeeb Ur Rehman examined herself as PW.1 and another witness was examined as PW.2 and produced thirteen documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P- 13, while there was no evidence let-in on behalf of the respondents. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.4 partly in the affirmative, issue No.3 in the negative and awarded compensation of Rs.8,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/claimants and learned counsel for the respondent/insurer and perused the material on record.
9. Appellants’ counsel contended that the Tribunal was not right in assessing the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/-. He contended that the accident occurred on 29/04/2016. The deceased was working in a fabrication store. He was pursuing his second year Civil Diploma Engineering course. He had potential to earn a handsome salary, but the Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income at a very low rate. He further contended that there is no award towards future prospects and multiplier 18 had to be applied bearing in mind the age of the mother of the deceased. He further contended that the award of compensation may be re-assessed and enhanced.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurer contended that the award of compensation is just and proper and the manner in which it has been assessed would not call for any interference in this appeal, rather the award of interest on the said compensation at the rate of 8% per annum is on the higher side. That if this Court is to enhance the compensation amount, then the rate of interest may be reduced to 6% per annum as this is the rate at which this Court would normally award interest.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation?
(ii) Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal calls for any interference?
(iii) What order?
12. The fact that Mujeeb Ur Rehman died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29/04/2016 at about 11.45 p.m. when they were proceeding on a motorcycle opposite Heerehalli railway station on NH-48, Tumakuru, when a lorry bearing registration No.TN-41/AL-6057 was driven in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life from the opposite side and dashed against the motorcycle causing grievous injuries, which resulted in his death has been established by the claimants. The controversy however is with regard to the award of compensation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,98,000/- in the following terms:
Total Rs.8,98,000/-
13. The contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties would not call for reiteration, but the question as to whether the Tribunal has justified in assessing the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/-. The date of accident is 29/04/2016. Deceased Mujeeb Ur Rehman was studying in second year Civil Diploma Engineering and he is said to have been working in a fabrication store and drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, there is no corroboration of the said plea and oral evidence let-in by the claimants. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income at Rs.9,500/-. However, we find that the said assessment is on the lower side and it has to be enhanced and we deem it just and proper to re-assess the notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month bearing in mind the potential of deceased Mujeeb Ur Rehman. 40% of the said income would be added towards future prospects, in which event the total monthly income would be Rs.16,800/-. Since deceased Mujeeb Ur Rehman was a bachelor, 50% would have to be deducted, which would come to Rs.8,400/- and the same would have to be annualized by applying multiplier of 18 bearing in mind the age of the deceased and not the age of mother as has been done by the Tribunal. Consequently, compensation on the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.18,14,400/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded to the parents of the deceased Mujeeb Ur Rehman towards loss of filial consortium having regard to the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, [(2017)16 SCC 680] and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram, [2018 ACJ 2782]; the parents of the deceased are entitled Rs.30,000/- each towards love and affection. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremonies. Thus, the re- assessed total compensation is Rs.19,64,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum without assigning any reason for the same. Normally, this Court as well as the Tribunal would award 6% per annum in death claims. Hence, we think it just and proper to award compensation at 6% per annum. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part.
The re-assessed compensation shall be apportioned between the claimants in the ratio of 40:40:10:10. The compensation awarded to the minor siblings of the deceased shall be deposited in any nationalized bank or post office until they attain the age of majority.
75% of the compensation amount awarded to the mother of the deceased shall be deposited in any nationalized bank or post office for an initial period of ten years and she shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to her after due identification.
50% of the compensation awarded to the father of the deceased shall be deposited in any nationalized bank or post office for an initial period of ten years and he shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to him after due identification.
The respondent/insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount with updated interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*