Karnataka High Court
Farzana Begum W/O Late Abdul Rasheed And ... vs Sri Sampath Raj Jain S/O Babulal Jain And ... on 9 October, 2020
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
M.F.A.NO.201846/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Farzana Begum W/o Late Abdul
Rasheed, Aged: 48 years,
Occ: Household,
2. Ahmedi Begum D/o Late Abdul
Rasheed, Aged: 23 years,
Occ: Student of IV semester B.H.M.S.,
3. Azra Sultana D/o Late Abdul Rasheed,
Aged: 21 years, Occ: Student of III
Semester of Diploma in Electronics,
4. Lubna Begum D/o Late Abdul Rasheed,
Aged: 19 years, Occ: Student,
5. Jamela D/o Late Abdul Rasheed,
Aged: 9 years, minor, Occ: Student,
Appellant No.5 is Minor, U/G of her
Natural mother Smt. Farzana Begum,
2
All R/o H.No.6/469/1, Kharibowli
Mominpura, Gulbarga-585102.
... Appellants
(By Sri B. Ali Mohammed, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Sampath Raj Jain S/o Babulal Jain,
Aged: 50 years, Occ: Owner of Lorry
No. GA-01-W-7002, R/o Near Old Vegetable
Market, Shahapur, Dist: Yadgir-585223.
2. The Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., Dr. Jawali Complex,
Super Market, Gulbarga-585101.
3. Mohammed Arshad Ahmed
S/o Mohd. Sattar, Aged: 35 years,
Occ : Owner of Tavera Vehicle
No.MH-05-AJ-7040, R/o H.No.6-209,
Khari Bowli, Mominpura,
Gulbarga-585102.
4. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Asian Plaza Complex, S.V. Patel Chowk,
Gulbarga-585101.
... Respondents
(Sri Sudarshan M., Advocate for R2;
Smt Saroja S. Patil &
Sri C.S.Kalburgi, Advocates for R4;
Notice to R1 and R3 is dispensed with)
3
This MFA is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV
Act-1988, praying to call for the records in MVC
No.688/2012 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
MACT, at Gulbarga and the impugned Judgment and
Award dated 20/01/2014 passed in MVC No.688/2012
on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT at
Gulbarga may be modified by granting compensation as
claimed in the claim petition and this Miscellaneous
First Appeal may be allowed as prayed with cost in the
interest of justice and equity.
This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day,
P.KRISHNA BHAT J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a claimants' appeal calling in question the correctness of the judgment and award dated 20.01.2014 in MVC No.688/2012 by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Gulbarga.
2. The claim petition proceeded on the averments that on 23.04.2012 at about 3.00 a.m. deceased Abdul Rasheed and his wife and children were 4 returning to Gulbarga in Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.MH-05-AJ-7040 and when they were near Madbool cross, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and on account of the same it dashed to a parked lorry bearing registration No.GA-01-W-7002 resulting in death of deceased Abdul Rasheed and several others. The claim petition filed by his dependents came to be allowed by awarding a compensation of Rs.16,28,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability to satisfy the award amount was apportioned equally in the ratio of 50:50 on the respondent Nos.2 and 4 in this appeal.
3. The insurance companies have not questioned the correctness of the judgment and award and therefore question of liability and apportionment regarding liability to satisfy the award amount has become final.
5
4. Principal grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that learned Tribunal has fallen into an error by taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,93,526/- only, whereas, as per Ex.P.16 and P.17 which are the Income Tax Returns filed for the accounting years 2009 to 2011 show that he had net annual income of Rs.2,44,415/- and 2,69,126/- respectively. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has also did not take into consideration the component under the head of loss of future prospects of life as per the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. He also submitted that under the conventional heads also, learned Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation than what was legally awardable as per the various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
6
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4, the Insurance Companies of the two vehicles involved in the accident contend that learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and annual income taken by it is based on the Income Tax returns filed by claimants themselves and therefore no case is made out for interfering with the award made by the learned Tribunal. It was also submitted by them that since deceased was running a partnership firm, it cannot be said that there is loss of financial support to the family on account of the death of the deceased, as the partnership firm is still continued.
6. Perusal of Ex.P.16 and P.17 show that the Income Tax returns filed before the Tribunal were not of the partnership firm, but were of all the receipts pertaining to the deceased himself in his individual capacity. They respectively show an annual income of Rs.2,44,415/- and Rs.2,69,126/- and they are for the 7 accounting year 2009 to 2011, that is, immediately preceding the date of the accident which was 23.04.2012. The claimants before the learned Tribunal had also examined PW.5 who was the Income Tax Inspector of the concerned circle to prove the said documents. We have no reason to disbelieve the authenticity or the genuineness of Ex.P.16 and P.17. PW.5 has specifically stated that the deceased Abdul Rasheed filed Income Tax Returns in his individual capacity. Therefore, taking a reasonable view of the matter, we are of the opinion that annual income taken by the learned Tribunal for the purpose of computing loss of dependency is on the lower side and we hold that learned Tribunal should have taken the same at Rs.2,50,000/-.
7. The deceased Abdul Rasheed has left behind the widow and four daughters. Therefore, deduction to be made under the head of personal and living expenses 8 is 1/4th of his income. Further as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 10% of his income is required to be added towards loss of future prospects in life, age of the deceased being 54 years. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the said age is 11 (Sarla Verma). Therefore, the loss of dependency is required to be re-worked as follows:
Rs.2,50,000 + 25,000 = 2,75,000-68,750 (1/4 th) = 2,06,250 x 11 = Rs.22,68,750/-.
8. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.15,88,224/- under the head loss of dependency. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,80,526/- under this head.
9. Under the conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/-. By taking cognizance of the development of law regarding award of compensation under the 9 conventional heads from Pranay Sethi's (supra) decision to the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Somwati & Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 720, we are of the considered opinion that separate award of Rs.40,000/- each has to be made under two heads viz., spousal consortium and parental consortium. Further under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses a sum of Rs.30,000/- is required to be awarded. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,90,526/- and it shall carry same rate of interest as was awarded by the learned Tribunal below. The appeal is required to be allowed to the said extent. Hence, the following:
ORDER The above appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the judgment and award dated 10 20.01.2014 in MVC No.688/2012, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.7,90,526/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned as between respondent Nos.2 and 4 in the same ratio as directed by the learned Tribunal below.
The Insurance Companies shall deposit entire compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NSP