Sri. Aslam S/O Nazesmt. Ruksana ... vs The Divisional Manager ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2710 Kant

                               1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


               MFA No.201101/2018 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     NAZEER S/O HASAN MULANI
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL

2.     SMT. RUKSANA W/O NAZEER MULANI
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL

3.     ASHLAM S/O NAZEER MULANI
       AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
       OCC: STUDENT

       ALL ARE R/O TIKOTA
       TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR
                                        ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
BHUDAWARPETH, ST BUS
SOLAPUR-416416
                                        ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.A.KAKHANDKI &
 SRI S.H.MANUR, ADVOCATES)
                                 2




      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION     AMOUNT    BY       SUITABLY   MODIFYING    THE
JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II-
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VII, VIJAYAPURA
IN MVC NO.2155/2014.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short

'the Act') aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

10.04.2017 passed by II-Additional Senior Civil Judge

and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VII,

Vijayapura, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal') in MVC No.2155/2014.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are

as under:

On 07.05.2013 at about 10.45 p.m., the

deceased Wasim S/o Nazeer Mulani was traveling in

Indigo Car bearing registration No.MH-46/ED-4574

from Miraj to Pandharpur side and the deceased was

driving the said car in slow and cautious manner

following traffic rules. When the said car came near

Nagaj on Miraj-Pandharpur road, one MSRTC bus

bearing registration No.MH-14/BT-1255 came from

opposite direction in a high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner and thereby the driver of the bus

lost control over the bus and both the vehicles dashed

to each other thereby causing head on collision. Due

to which, the deceased-Wasim sustained severe

injuries on different parts of the body and he died on

the spot. The criminal case was registered against the

driver of the bus. The claimants being the legal

representatives of the deceased-Wasim have filed the

claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act seeking

compensation for the death of Wasim in the road

traffic accident.

3. The respondent/Corporation though

appeared failed to file written statement and to

contest the petition.

4. The claimants examined claimant No.1 as

PW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6.

The respondent did not adduce evidence either oral or

documentary.

5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of

the parties formulated the following points:

i. "Whether the petitioners prove that, in the accident involving the vehicles i.e., MSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.MH-14/BT- 1255 and Indigo Car bearing Reg.No.MH- 46/ED-4574 deceased Wasim S/o Nazeer Mulani sustained fatal injuries and died as being alleged?

ii. Whether petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?

iii. What order or award?"

6. The Tribunal after recording the evidence

and after considering the material on record has

recorded a finding that the claimants have proved that

the deceased-Wasim died in the accident involving

MSRTC bus bearing registration No.MH-14/BT-1255 and

Indigo Car bearing registration No.MH-46/ED-4574 as

alleged in the claim petition and held that the claimants

are entitled to compensation and awarded compensation

of Rs.4,14,100/- along with interest at the rate of 9%

per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of

realization and further held that the respondent is liable

to pay compensation.

7. Being dissatisfied with the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants/appellants have

filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants.

The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation is

absent.

9. The learned counsel for the claimants

submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is on the lower side and prays to allow the appeal.

10. I have perused the records and considered

the submission made by the learned counsel for the

claimants. The point that arises for consideration is with

regard to quantum of compensation.

11. The occurrence of the accident, involvement

of the MSRTC bus and Indigo Car in the accident and

death of the deceased-Wasim in the said accident are

not in dispute. In order to prove that the accident has

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

drivers of both the vehicles, the claimants have

produced copy of the FIR and charge sheet and they are

marked as Exs.P1 and P3. From perusal of the said

records, it is clear that the accident has occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both

vehicles.

12. Perusal of the impugned judgment would

indicate that PW.1 has deposed that the deceased was

working as driver and was earning Rs.39,500/- per

annum. In support of their contention, the claimants

have not produced any documentary evidence. Hence,

the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.3,200/-, but the same is on the lower

side. Considering the nature of work and year of

accident i.e., 2013, this Court re-assesses the

compensation at Rs.40,000/- per annum. Out of which,

I deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the said income

towards personal expenses of the deceased and

therefore, the income of the deceased comes to

Rs.26,667/-. The deceased-Wasim was aged about 20

years. The multiplier applicable to his age group is 18

as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of

Rs.4,80,006/- (26,667 x 18) on account of loss of

dependency.

13. In addition to it, the claimants are entitled to

a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses.

14. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to a

sum of Rs.4,84,506/- as against Rs.4,14,100/- awarded

by the Tribunal.

15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

iii. The claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.70,406/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

iv. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from date of the receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*