Karnataka High Court
Reshma W/O Late Syed Shafiulla Pasha vs Arshed Hussain on 13 February, 2025
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB
MFA No. 101350 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101350 OF 2016(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101353 OF 2016(MV-D)
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101350 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. FARZANA RASHEED
W/O LATE SYED AMANULLA PASHA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. MINOR SYED AYAN PASHA
S/O LATE SYED AMANULLA PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS.
3. MINOR SYED FAYAZAN PASHA
S/O LATE SYED AMANULLA PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by ANJALI M
4. SYED ISMAIL PASHA S/O SYED AMEER SAB,
Location: High
Court of AGE. 70 YEARS, RETIRED TEACHER,
Karnataka, (APPELLANT NOS. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS
Dharwad Bench
R/BY APPELLANT NO.1)
ALL ARE R/O VADDARABANDA,
BRUCEPET, BALLARI-583101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARSHAD HUSSAIN
S/O K. ABDUL RAASHEED KHAJI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
DRIVER CUM OWNER OF HYNDAI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB
MFA No. 101350 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016
VARNA CAR BEARING NO.KA-03/MJ-8560,
R/O SF-I GOLDEN ARK APARTMENT,
DINNUR MAIN ROAD,
RT NAGAR, POST BENGALURU-32.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT PARVATHI NAGAR,
OPPOSITE TO AXIS BANK, BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:17.10.2015,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.144/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, AT BALLARI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101353 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RESHMA W/O LATE SYED SHAFIULLA PASHA
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. MINOR ABDU RAHMAN PASHA
S/O LATE SYED SHAFIULLA PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.
3. MINOR SYED ALTHAF PASHA
S/O LATE SYED SHAIFULLA PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 41/2 YEARS.
4. SYED ISMAIL PASHA S/O SYED AMEER SAB,
AGE: 70 YEARS, RETIRED TEACHER,
(APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS
R/BY APPELLANT NO.1)
ALL ARE R/O VADDARABANDA,
BRUCEPET, BALLARI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB
MFA No. 101350 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016
AND:
1. ARSHED HUSSAIN S/O K. ABDUL RQASHEED KHAJI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF HYNDAI
VARNA CAR BEARING REGN NO.KA-03/MJ-8560,
R/O SF-I GOLDEN ARK APARTMENT,
DINNUR MAIN ROAD,
RT NAGAR, POST BENGALURU-32.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT PARVATHI NAGAR,
OPPOSITE TO AXIS BANK, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17.10.2015 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-XII AT BALLARI IN MVC NO.145/2013 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT AND
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB
MFA No. 101350 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2015 passed in MVC No.144 & 145/2013 by the MACT-XII, Ballari.
2. The claimants in both these appeals have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. Parties to these appeals are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Claimants in MVC No.144/2013 and 145/2013 being the dependents of deceased Syed Amanulla Pasha S/o.Syed Ismail Pasha and Syed Shafiulla Pasha, S/o.Syed Ismail Pasha filed the claim petitions under Section 166 of the MV Act,1988 respectively claiming compensation of Rs.2,27,00,000/- and Rs.1,62,00,000/- on account of death of deceased stated above in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.8.2012 at 3.30 a.m. when they were travelling in a car bearing regn.No.KA.03/MJ-8560 from Bengaluru to Hubli to attend the death ceremony of their mother and when their car was proceeding from -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 Ranebennur to Haveri NH-4, Poona Bengaluru Road, near Hanumanna Matti Railway Station, the first respondent being the driver of the car, drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the over bridge towards left side due to which, both the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
4. The claimants in MVC No.144/2013 specifically contend that, the deceased Syed Amanulla Pasha was working as Estimation Engineer at M.A.H.Y Khoori Company and was earning Rs.8,000 Diram of Dubai currency per month which is equivalent to Rs.1,20,000/- per month in Indian currency. He was 35 years at the time of death and was hale and healthy. He was contributing his entire income towards maintenance of his family. The claimants in this petition are deprived of their earning member's love and affection and put to mental agony and financial loss.
5. Likewise, the claimants in MVC 145/2013 have taken up a contention that, deceased Syed Shafiulla Pasha was hale and healthy and was aged 39 years. He was an -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 employee of Paris Group International LLC at Dubai and was earning Rs.5,000/- Diram of Dubai Currency per month which is equivalent to Rs.75,000/-per month in Indian currency. These claimants also specifically contend about mental agony, financial loss and love and affection of deceased. Hence, prayed to award the compensation as prayed in the claim petitions.
6. In response to the notices, both the respondents appeared but, respondent no.2 alone being the insurer of the car, contested the petition by filing detailed objection statement denying each and every allegation made in the claim petitions and contending that, the driver of the said car was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence. Its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, prayed to dismiss both the petitions.
7. Based upon rival pleadings, relevant issues were framed. To prove the claim of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as PW.s 1 and 2 being claimant no.1 in both the petitions respectively and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 closed claimants' evidence. An official of respondent no.2 was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1 to R4 were marked.
8. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of car by its driver by respondent no.1 and he was holding effective driving licence, therefore, the contention of the insurer that there is violation of policy conditions is rejected.
9. While assessing the compensation, Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Syed Amanulla Pasha at Rs.50,000/- per month and considering his age as 35 years at the time of accident as per PM report at Ex.P8, by applying multiplier `16' and also deducted 1/4th of his income towards his personal expenses and added 30% to the actual earnings towards his future prospects held that, the claimants are entitled for the compensation as under: -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 Sl. Particulars Amount No. In Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 93,60,000/-
2. For the Loss of Estate 20,000/-
3. For the Loss of Love and 20,000/- Affection
4. Towards funeral expenses 20,000/-
5. For the loss of consortium to 20,000/-
the first petitioner.
TOTAL 94,40,000/-
10. Likewise, with regard to assessment of
compensation with regard to Syed Shafiulla Pasha, the learned Tribunal held that deceased was aged 39 years at the time of accident and considering the evidence placed on record assessed his monthly income at 40,000/- and added 30% of the same towards future prospects and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and ultimately awarded the compensation under all the relevant heads as under:
Sl. Particulars Amount
No. In Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 70,20,000/-
2. For the Loss of Estate 20,000/-
3. For the Loss of Love and 20,000/-
Affection
4. Towards funeral expenses 20,000/-
5. For the loss of consortium to 20,000/-
the first petitioner.
TOTAL 71,00,000/-
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB
MFA No. 101350 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016
11. Now appellants in both these appeals are seeking enhancement of compensation.
12. The learned counsels for the claimants in both these appeals submit that the award of compensation under all the heads is inadequate and hence, it is to be enhanced. According to the submission of the counsel for the claimants Sri Y.Lakshmikanth Reddy, the salary slips of deceased, agreement of employment are not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation as prayed in the claim petitions.
13. As against this submission, Sri N.R.Kuppellur, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 justifies the compensation so awarded and would submit that no interference is required into the impugned judgment and award passed in this case and prays to dismiss the appeals.
14. We have considered the submissions of both the side and perused the record.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016
15. As could be seen from the records of this case as well as submissions of both the side, so far as accident so stated by the claimants, death of two persons stated above, their age, their employment in Dubai so also liability is not in dispute. Therefore, the only aspect that is to be decided in these appeals is:-
"Whether the claimants in both these appeals are entitled for enhancement in compensation so awarded by the Tribunal?"
16. To prove that deceased Syed Amanulla Pasha was earning Rs.1,20,000/- in Indian Currency by working as Estimation Engineer at M.A.H.Y Khoori Company, claimants relied upon agreement of employment and salary slip as per Ex.P10. Author of these documents are not examined by the claimants. So to say, except the self-serving testimony of PW.1 there is no evidence placed on record by the claimants. Considering the qualification of the deceased, as well as his employment at Dubai, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- by applying the principles laid down in the judgment in Rajesh and others
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 vs. Rajbir Singh and others1, the future prospects is added to the extent of 30%. The Tribunal has also applied the multiplier `16' as per judgment in Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.2 and deducted 1/4th of his monthly income towards personal expenses. Thus, calculated, the `loss of dependency' to the extent of Rs.93,60,000/-. As per the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi3, as he was employed in Dubai in a private company and the deceased was less than 40 years, the percentage of future prospects ought to have been calculated at 40%, but, the Tribunal has considered the same at 30% which is incorrect and requires interference by this Court. In view of the income being assessed at Rs.50,000/- per month, 40% is to be added to the same towards future prospects as per judgment in Pranay Sethi supra, that means Rs.50,000+ Rs.20,000=Rs.70,000/-. As the deceased had four dependents, 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards 1 2013 ACJ 1403 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 his personal expenses. That means Rs.70,000 - Rs.17,500 = Rs.52,500/-. Rightly the Tribunal has applied the multiplier `16' as the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the `loss of dependency' Rs.52,500 x 12 months x 16 = Rs.1,00,80,000/-(Rupees One Crore Eighty Thousand only). Thus, in the absence of relevant document with regard to income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed at Rs.50,000/- but, committed mistake while adding the future prospects and accordingly it is corrected now.
17. So far as other conventional heads are concerned, claimant no.1 is the wife, claimant nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children. The claimant no.1 is aged 32 years and lost her husband at her young age and also lost conjugal happiness. Claimant nos.2 and 3 being minor children and claimant no.4 being the father of deceased have lost love and affection of deceased, are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each with 10% hike for every three years commencing from 2016 onwards in view of the judgment in Pranay Sethi supra that means in
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 all 20% i.e., Rs.48,000/- each. Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- each is to be awarded with hike at 20% as stated supra is awarded, thereby, Rs.18,000/- each. Thus, the claimants in this MFA No.101350/2016 (MVC No.144/2013) are held entitled for compensation as under:
Sl. Particulars Amount
No. In Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 1,00,80,000/-
2. For the loss of consortium to 1,92,000/-
claimant nos. 1 to 4
@48,000/- each.
3. For the Loss of Estate 18,000/-
4. Towards funeral expenses 18,000/-
TOTAL 1,03,08,000/-
18. So far as claimants in MFA No.101353/2016 are concerned, the learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs.40,000/- as he was working with Paris Group International LLC at Dubai and was earning Rs.75,000/- per month in Indian currency. There is no evidence placed on record by the claimants in this petition that he was really earning Rs.75,000/- except Ex.P7. The author of the said document is not examined. Therefore, income of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.40,000/- is accepted and no interference is required with regard to the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal instead of calculating future prospects at 40%, has calculated the same at 30% which is incorrect. Thus, it would be Rs.56,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 16,000). To this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.42,000/- (Rs.56,000 - Rs.14,000/-). Thus this would be the net income of the deceased towards family maintenance. It is to be multiplied with `12' to calculate annually. He was aged 39 years at the time of accident. The proper multiplier that is applicable is `15'. Thus, the `loss of dependency' would be Rs.75,60,000/- (Rs.42,000 x 12months x 15 multiplier).
19. So far as other conventional heads are concerned, claimant no.1 is the wife, claimant nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children. The claimant no.1 is aged 38 years and lost her husband at her young age and also lost her conjugal happiness. Claimant nos.2 and 3 being minor children have lost love and affection of their father at their
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 tender age. So far as the claimant no.4, is the father of deceased and he has lost his son at his evening age so also love and affection. Therefore, towards `loss of consortium' these claimants nos. 1 to 4 are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each with 10% hike for every three years commencing from 2016 onwards in view of the judgment in Pranay Sethi supra that means 20% i.e., Rs.48,000/- each. Thus, the total compensation towards `loss of consortium' would be Rs.1,92,000/-. Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs.15,000/-each is to be awarded. Rs.15,000/- with hike of 20% as stated supra. That means, Rs.18,000/- each. Thus, the claimants in this MFA No.101353/2016 (MVC No.145/2013) are held entitled for compensation as under:
Sl. Particulars Amount
No. In Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 75,60,000/-
2. For the `loss of consortium' 1,92,000/- to claimant nos. 1 to 4 @48,000/- each.
3 For the Loss of Estate 18,000/-
4. Towards funeral expenses 18,000/-
TOTAL 77,88,000/-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB
MFA No. 101350 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016
20. Thus, the appellants in MFA
No.101350/2016(MVC No.144/2013) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,03,08,000/- as against Rs.94,40,000/- thereby enhancement of Rs.8,68,000/- and in MFA No.101353/2016(MVC No.145/2013) are entitled for compensation of Rs.77,88,000/- as against Rs.71,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal thereby enhancement of Rs.6,88,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Resultantly, we pass the following:
ORDER i. MFA No.101350/2016 and MFA No.101353/2016) filed by the claimants are allowed in-part.
ii. In MFA No.101350/2016 (MVC No.144/2013), the claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,03,08,000/- as against Rs.94,40,000/- thereby enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,68,000/-.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 iii. In MFA No.101353/2016 (MVC No.145/2013), the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.77,88,000/- as against Rs.71,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal thereby enhancement of Rs.6,88,000/-.
iv. The above enhanced amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of petitions till its realization.
v. The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.144 & 145/2013 dated 17.10.2015 passed by the MACT-XII, Ballari is hereby modified to the above extent.
vi. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally are held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent no.2 to deposit the said enhanced compensation together with interest @6%p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment before the Tribunal.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2894-DB MFA No. 101350 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101353 of 2016 vii. The award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment, deposit and release of the compensation amount, shall remain unaltered.
viii. There shall be a modified award accordingly.
ix. Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith.
SD/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE Sk/-CT:VG LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 5