Karnataka High Court
Ishrathulla vs Smt. Selvi Mani on 14 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB
MFA No. 6839 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6839 OF 2018(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. ISHRATHULLA
S/O. ABDUL MAJEED
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2. THANZIL AHMED
S/O. ASHRATHULLA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.18/A,
SHOYANS 6TH-A-CROSS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 20TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE
MHBCS, BTM LAYOUT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU - 29.
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE [THROUGH V.C])
AND:
1. SMT. SELVI MANI
W/O. S.MANI,
R/AT NO.2, KRISHNA BUILDING
HUSKUR GATE
ELECTRONIC CITY POST
BENGALURU-100.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB
MFA No. 6839 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTINARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.L.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.08.2021,
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.06.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.1303/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 6-6-2018 passed in M.V.C. No.1303 of 2014 on the file of the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short 'Tribunal') whereby, the Tribunal -3- NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB MFA No. 6839 of 2018 HC-KAR awarded a sum of Rs.95,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-02-2014, at about 7.30 A.M., Smt. Shaheen Banu (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), was pedestrian on her return way from morning walk towards her residence, while proceeding on 18th Main, BTM Layout, I Stage, in front of ICICI Bank ATM Counter, near Gangothri Circle. At that time, the driver of Maxi Cab, bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-5395 came in high speed in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from behind. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury and multiple fatal injuries all over the body. Immediately she was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru, where the Doctor, upon examination, declared her as brought dead to hospital. Due to her death, husband and son -4- NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB MFA No. 6839 of 2018 HC-KAR have lost their dependency and hence, claimed compensation on various heads.
4. Heard Sri Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Sri H.S. Lingaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company, and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. Prior to the accident, the deceased was doing import and export business and her monthly income was more than Rs.50,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased. Further, the Trial Court has not considered 'future prospects' of the income of deceased. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, and submits that, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal -5- NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB MFA No. 6839 of 2018 HC-KAR awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Further, the counsel contended that the son of the deceased is not dependant, since he is employed abroad and husband is the only dependant of the deceased. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 25-02-2014 due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi Cab, bearing Registration No. KA-51-A-5395, and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?"
8. In the instant appeal, the Insurance Company has not disputed the accident or death of the deceased or its liability to pay compensation. The Insurance Company has disputed the quantum of compensation payable to the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB MFA No. 6839 of 2018 HC-KAR claimants. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not granted compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
9. We have perused the material available on record. Prior to the accident, the deceased was carrying on an import and export business under the name and style of 'Sam Trade Link' and deceased was the sole Proprietor of the said business. To substantiate the contention of the claimants, they got examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28. The respondent examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1. Further, they have furnished Ex.P15- Certificate of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC), Ex.P16-Value Added Tax Registration Certificate, Ex.P17-Confirmation of VAT De-Registration, Ex.P18-Syndicate Bank pass book extract, Exs.P19 to P21 Income Tax Returns, Balance sheet and profit and Loss Account attested by the Auditor. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that deceased was an income tax assessee and her annual income was more than Rs.9,30,000/- for the assessment year 2014-2015. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Exs.P15 to P21, it -7- NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB MFA No. 6839 of 2018 HC-KAR clearly establishes that deceased was running an import and export business in the name and style of 'Sam Trade Link', and she was paying income tax. As per Exs.P19 to P21, her income was Rs.9,30,000/- per annum, for assessment year 2014-2015.
10. We have perused the application for compensation filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act before the Tribunal, wherein, the appellants/claimants restricted claim of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- per month. Hence, we have taken income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- per month only.
11. The deceased was aged about 49 years at the time of the accident. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has not disputed this aspect. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 is '13'. The deceased died leaving behind her husband and a son. Since his son is a major and employed in abroad, he is not -8- NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB MFA No. 6839 of 2018 HC-KAR dependent on the income of the deceased and husband is the sole dependant on the income of the deceased. Hence, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses would be 50%. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects towards income of the deceased. The deceased was self- employed and below the age of 50 years. Hence, the claimants are entitled to 25% 'future prospects', in view of decision of Pranay Sethi's case. Thus, 'loss of dependency' is reckoned as under:
Rs.50,000 + 25% (12,500)= 62,500 x 50% = 31,250/- Rs.31,250 X 12 X 13 = 48,75,000/-
12. So far as the compensation under 'conventional heads' are concerned, the Tribunal considered the same and awarded Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'. Further, Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' awarded by the Tribunal is maintained.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB MFA No. 6839 of 2018 HC-KAR
13. However, Rs.25,000/- towards 'love and affection' awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the same is deducted.
14. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:
HEADS Rs.
Loss of dependency 48,75,000.00
Loss of consortium 40,000.00
Funeral expenses 15,000.00
Loss of estate 15,000.00
TOTAL 49,45,000.00
Less: Compensation awarded by the
95,000.00
Tribunal
ENHANCED COMPENSATION 48,50,000.00
15. In the result, we pass the following ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.49,45,000/- as against Rs.95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.48,50,000/- from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31547-DB MFA No. 6839 of 2018 HC-KAR iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
iv. Apportionment, disbursement, and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
v. Draw the modified award accordingly.
vi. No order as to costs.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9