Karnataka High Court
Smt. Basamma vs Mohammed Ghouse Peer on 31 May, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.2424/2016 (MV)
C/W.
M.F.A.NO.1448/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.1449/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.1450/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.1451/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.1452/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.1453/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.2419/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.2420/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.2421/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.2422/2016 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.2423/2016 (MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.2424/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. SHRANAPPA S.S.
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.58
5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
VRUSHABHAVATI NAGAR
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-79.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
S/O ABDUL SAB
(SINCE DEAD REPTD. BY HIS LR'S)
A) MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
B) MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
C) MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE
V.G.DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P.HUB, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01
BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1(A-C) IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 08.02.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6642/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
3
IN M.F.A.NO.1448/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P. HUB, 6TH FLOOR,
KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NAVEEN @ B.S. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O SRI SHIVANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.66, 6TH MAIN,
MARUTHI NAGAR
KAMAKASHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560079
2. SRI MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3. MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE,
V.G. DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-572120.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6637/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,63,752/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.1449/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P. HUB, 6TH FLOOR,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SHARANAPPA S.S.,
S/O SRI LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.58, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
5
VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR
KAMAKASHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560079
2. SRI MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3. MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE,
V.G. DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-572120.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6641/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 27TH ACMM,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,36,745/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.1450/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P. HUB, 6TH FLOOR,
6
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUMARI PRIYA
D/O LATE VEERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
R/AT NO.58, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR
KAMAKASHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560079.
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.SHYLA V.,
2. SRI MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3. MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
7
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE,
V.G. DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-572120.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6640/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 27TH ACMM,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,51,317/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.1451/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P. HUB, 6TH FLOOR,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O SRI LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
8
2. SRI SHARANAPPA S.S.
S/O SRI LATE SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT No.58, 5TH MAIN
6TH CROSS, VRUSHABHAVATI NAGAR
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560 079.
3. SRI MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4. MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
5. MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE,
V.G. DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6642/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,00,956/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
9
IN M.F.A.NO.1452/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P. HUB, 6TH FLOOR,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHYLA V.,
W/O SRI VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT No.58, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
VRUSHABHAVATI NAGAR
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560 079.
2. SRI MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3. MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
10
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE,
V.G. DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6639/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.20,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.1453/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P. HUB, 6TH FLOOR,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHOBHA
D/O SRI SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
11
R/AT No.58, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
VRUSHABHAVATI NAGAR
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560 079.
2. SRI MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
3. MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
0R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE,
V.G. DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6638/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,41,354/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.2419/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN @ B.S. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O SRI SHIVANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
12
R/AT NO.66, 6TH MAIN,
MARUTHI NAGAR
KAMAKASHIPALYA
BENGALURU-79
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
S/O ABDUL SAB
(SINCE DEAD REPTD. BY HIS LR'S)
A) MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
B) MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
C) MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE
V.G.DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P.HUB, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01
BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 8.2.2017)
13
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6637/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 27TH ACMM,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.2420/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
SHOBHA
D/O SRI SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT No.58, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
VRUSHABHAVATI NAGAR
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-79.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
S/O ABDUL SAB
(SINCE DEAD REPTD. BY HIS LR'S)
A) MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
B) MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
C) MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
14
ALL ARE R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE
V.G.DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P.HUB, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01
BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C);
SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6638/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 27TH ACMM,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.2421/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
SHYLA V.,
W/O SRI VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT No.58, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
VRUSHABHAVATI NAGAR
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560 079.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
S/O ABDUL SAB
(SINCE DEAD REPTD. BY HIS LR'S)
15
A) MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
B) MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
C) MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE
V.G.DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P.HUB, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01
BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1(A-C) IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 08.02.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6639/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.2422/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
KUM. PRIYA
D/O LATE VEERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
R/AT NO.58, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR
16
KAMAKASHIPALYA
BENGALURU-560079.
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.SHYLA V.,
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
S/O ABDUL SAB
(SINCE DEAD REPTD. BY HIS LR'S)
A) MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
B) MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
C) MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE
V.G.DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562120.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P.HUB, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01
BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1(A-C) IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 08.02.2017)
17
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6640/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 27TH ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.2423/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
SRI SHARANAPPA S.S.,
S/O SRI LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.58, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR
KAMAKASHIPALYA
BENGALURU-79
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
S/O ABDUL SAB
(SINCE DEAD REPTD. BY HIS LR'S)
A) MOHAMMED NAYAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
B) MOHAMMED NAWAZ AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
C) MOHAMMED HAYAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE PEER
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
18
ALL ARE R/AT HANCHIKUPPE VILLAGE
V.G.DODDI POST, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-573201.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P.HUB, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01
BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1(A-C) IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 08.02.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC.NO.6641/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs' COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the claimants as well as the
Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed
in M.V.C.Nos.6637/2013 to 6642/2013 dated 16.09.2015 on the
file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, SCCH-11 The
claimants are questioning the quantum of compensation and the
Insurance Company is questioning the negligence as well as the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.10.2013
at about 11.30 p.m., the claimants and the deceased
Shankarappa were proceeding in the car bearing No.KA-01-AA-
6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore via Magadi on Magadi-Bangalore
Road slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. At that
time, the driver of the Tata Sumo car bearing No. KA-22-M-
4977 came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent
manner on the wrong side and dashed against the car in which
the claimants were proceeding. As a result, one of the occupant
of the car died on account of the injury sustained by him and
other occupants and driver have sustained injuries. The
claimants and the legal heirs have filed the claim petition before
the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries and the
death of one of the inmate of the car.
3. The respondent-Insurance Company has appeared
and filed separate written statement in all the claim petitions and
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having any valid driving license, permit and witness certificate
and there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
The respondent-Insurance Company also contended that the
accident was on account of the negligence on the part of the
driver of the car in which the claimants were traveling.
4. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim
have examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 and out of that P.W.6
is the Doctor, who assessed the disability in respect of the
injured claimants. The claimants have got marked the
documents Exs.P1 to P101. The respondent No.2 examined the
driver of the offending vehicle as R.W.1 and legal heir of
respondent No.1 examined a witness as R.W.2 and got marked
the documents Exs.R1 and R2, the driving license and smart
card.
5. The Tribunal, after assessing both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the claim
petition in part granting compensation as detailed below with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum:-
Sl.No. M.V.C. Nos. Amount
1. 6637/2013 7,63,752/-
2. 6638/2013 2,41,354/-
3. 6639/2013 20,000/-
4. 6640/2013 1,51,317/-
5. 6641/2013 3,36,745/-
6. 6642/2013 7,00,955/-
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the
Tribunal, the learned counsel for the claimants in the respective
appeals have contended that the Tribunal has committed an
error in taking lower income while computing future loss of
income and also loss of dependency and committed an error in
not awarding just and reasonable compensation and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and it
requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal, in all the cases has taken
income as Rs.5,000/- per month and hence, it requires
interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Company in his argument vehemently
contend that the Tribunal has failed to consider the negligence
on the part of the driver of the car in which the claimants were
proceeding and the sketch which is produced at Ex.P3 clearly
depicts the direction in which the car came and the Trial Judge
ought to have taken note of the sketch and the contributory
negligence ought to have been taken against the driver of the
car in which the claimants were proceeding and fastened the
liability on the respondent-Insurance Company, coming to the
conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle in entirety and the same requires
interference of this Court. He would further contend that the
Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence of the driver of the
car, who has been examined before the Tribunal. Hence, the
negligence has to be apportioned taking into consideration the
contributory negligence. He would further contend that the
Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% towards future
prospects and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and
the same is contrary to law. Hence, it requires interference of
this Court.
8. Having heard the arguments of respective counsel
and also on perusal of the record, the points that arise for
consideration before this Court are:
(1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in
not awarding just and reasonable compensation
as contended in the respective appeals filed by
the claimants and it requires interference of this
Court?
(2) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in
adding 50% towards future prospects and
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses in
injury cases and it requires interference of this
Court?
(3) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in
not taking contributory negligence as contended
by the learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company in their respective appeals
and it requires interference of this Court?
(4) What order?
Point No.3
9. Having considered both oral and documentary
evidence, this Court has to consider the material available on
record with regard to the negligence is concerned, since the
learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has
contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider Ex.P3-sketch
which clearly depicts that the driver of the car in which the
claimants were proceeding also contributed for the accident.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance
Company in support of his arguments he relied upon the
document at Ex.P3-Sketch wherein the place of the accident and
the directions in which both the vehicles were proceeding is
clearly shown. The respondent-Insurance Company in order to
prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
car, examined R.W.1, who is the driver of the offending vehicle
which was insured with the Insurance Company.
10. On perusal of the evidence of R.W.1, in his evidence,
he says that the accident has taken place due to negligence of
the driver of Tata Indica car. The driver of the Tata Indica Car
dashed to the right portion of his Tata Sumo Vehicle. Due to the
accident caused by the driver of the Tata Indica car, he was
struck due to hit of steering to his chest and lost his mobile
phone and sustained bleeding injuries. However, he was unable
to inform about the accident to the police, since he lost his
mobile phone in the accident. He was subjected to cross-
examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that the
daughter of his vehicle owner, who was sitting behind his seat
also sustained injuries and admits that he and the daughter of
his vehicle owner took treatment in Lakshmi Nursing Home. He
also admits that he had not filed any complaint to the police and
that the passengers traveling in his vehicle were not knowing
where the police station is situated. However, he admits that he
used to travel from Bangalore to Magadi and knows the location
of the police station. He also claims that he was unconscious for
two days after the accident. It is an admitted fact that he has
not given any complaint, though he claims that he and the
daughter of the owner of his vehicle have sustained injuries and
took the treatment at Lakshmi Nursing Home. Further, he and
the daughter of the owner of his vehicle have also not made any
claim in respect of the accident and no documentary proof is
produced for having taken the treatment for the injuries
sustained in the Lakshmi Nursing Home and no document that
he was not having conscious and there is no explanation, except
stating that he lost his mobile for not giving any complaint.
Nothing is proved with regard to the negligence on the part of
the driver of the Tata Indica Car in which the claimants were
traveling. Apart from that, the IMV report is clear that the front
portion of his vehicle was damaged and not the right portion of
the car, as he has deposed.
11. R.W.2 is the Administrative Officer and her evidence
is not helpful to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of
the Tata Indica Car.
12. R.W.3 is none other than the owner of the said
vehicle and he speaks only with regard to the fact that the policy
was in force at the time of the accident. He admits that the Tata
Sumo vehicle was seized by Madanayakanahalli traffic police in
respect of the accident and arrested the driver of the said vehicle
and thereafter, he was released. Hence, it is clear that R.W.1
was arrested and he was released after the accident.
13. First of all, neither R.W.1 nor the daughter of the
owner of his vehicle have given any complaint and no claims are
made for having sustained injury and no explanation with regard
to non-filing of the complaint. Apart from that, it is an
undisputed fact that charge sheet is filed against R.W.1 and the
Investigating Officer was also not examined to prove the fact of
contributory negligence, as contended by the learned counsel for
the respondent-Insurance Company. Under the circumstances, I
do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company that there was negligence on the part of
the driver of the Tata Indica Car and the sketch which has been
relied upon by the Insurance Company will not come to their aid
to prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver of
the Tata India Car and the Insurance Company has also not
disputed the spot which is shown in Ex.P3-Sketch. Hence, it is
clear that the driver of the Tata Sumo Car went on the wrong
side and caused accident and therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company cannot
be accepted to come to the conclusion that the accident was on
account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata
Indica Car. Hence, I answer Point No.(3) as 'Negative'.
Point Nos.(1) & (2)
14. The claimant in M.V.C.No.6637/2013 is the appellant
in M.F.A.No.2419/2016 and the appellant/Insurance Company in
M.F.A.No.1448/2016 have challenged the judgment and award
questioning the quantum of compensation. The claimant is the
driver of the car, who is aged about 28 years and he had
sustained fracture of right femur, left humerus and also
sustained spleen and head injury. He was inpatient for a period
of 16 days. The claimant has produced medical bills to the tune
of Rs.3,75,752/- and also examined the Doctor and the Doctor
has assessed the disability at 25% to the whole body and the
same has been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, apart
from this evidence, while calculating the future loss of income,
has taken the income as Rs.5,000/- per month and added 50%
towards future prospects and deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expense. First of all, the disability is not more than 70% or 85%
as held in Syed Sadiq's case and Sanjay Kumar's case wherein,
in a case of injury, 50% future prospects is added. When such
being the case, the Tribunal ought not to have added 50%
towards future prospects and committed an error in deducting
1/3rd towards personal expense in a case of injury. Taking into
consideration the claim made by the claimant, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.30,000/- on the head of pain and agony and the
same is on the lower side, as the claimant has sustained fracture
of right femur and left humerus apart from spleen and head
injury and he was inpatient for 16 days. Hence, it is appropriate
to revise the same as Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
14(i) The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant,
who is a Driver as Rs.5,000/- per month and the accident is of
the year 2013. In the absence of documentary proof regarding
income, notional income ought to have been taken by the
Tribunal and the notional income for the year 2013 is Rs.8,000/-
per moth and the fact that he was driver is not in dispute.
Hence, this Court has to add Rs.1,500/- as additional income as
his job is skill job, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in
M.F.A.No.4151/2017 dated 06.02.2020. Hence, the income of
the claimant is taken as Rs.9,500/- per month. After taking the
income as Rs.9,500/- per month, considering the disability at
25% and applying the relevant multiplier 17, the loss of future
prospects comes to Rs.4,84,500/- (9,500x12x17x25/100).
14(ii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,75,752/- towards
medical bills and there is no dispute with regard to the same and
the same does require any interference of this Court.
14(iii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss
of amenities and the same does not require any interference of
this Court, since he has to lead rest of his life with the disability
of 25%.
14(iv) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/- on the head
of other incidental expenses and he was inpatient for a period of
16 days and the same does not require any interference of this
Court.
14(v) The Tribunal while calculating the loss of income
during laid up period has taken only three months. Considering
the fracture sustained by him and it requires reunion of fracture
and rest, it is appropriate to take five months taking his income
as Rs.9,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.47,500/-
(9,500x5).
14(vi) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- on the head
of future medical expense and the same also does not call for
any interference and the same is just and reasonable.
After revisiting compensation on all the heads, the total
compensation works out to Rs.10,30,752/- as against
Rs.7,63,752/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per
annum.
15. The claimant in M.V.C.No.6638/2013, who is aged
about 24 years claims that she is a Tailor. The claimant has
preferred M.F.A.No.2420/2016 and the Insurance Company has
preferred appeal in M.F.A.No.1453/2016 since, the Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of Rs.2,41,354/-. In this case, the
main contention of the claimant is that, she has suffered fracture
of left ulna and was inpatient for a period of 4 days. She was
subjected to surgery and steel rod was implanted.
15(i) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- on the head
of pain and agony and having taken note of the fracture of left
Ulna, it is appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- on the head of pain
and suffering.
15(ii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- on the head
of loss of amenities and the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.
15(iii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/- towards loss
of income during laid up period. The Tribunal has taken the
income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-. However, in the absence
of any documentary proof, notional income is to be taken at
Rs.8,000/- per month. Considering the fact that the claimant has
suffered fracture of left ulna, it requires three months for
reuniting and rest. Hence, taking the income at Rs.8,000/- per
month for three months, it comes to Rs.24,000/- (8,000x3).
15(iv) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/- on the head of
other incidental expenses, as the claimant was inpatient for 4
days and hence, the same is just and reasonable.
15(v) The Tribunal failed to award any compensation on
the head of future medical expenses. It is not in dispute that
she was subjected to surgery and steel rod was implanted.
Hence, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards future
medical expenses.
15(vi) Now the question before this Court is with regard to
loss of future income is concerned. The Tribunal has considered
the disability at 12% and the fact that the fracture sustained by
the claimant is only left ulna is not in dispute. When such being
the case, the disability at 12% is on the higher side and the
same is assessed at 8%. Having taken the disability at 8%,
income at Rs.8,000/- per month and applying the relevant
multiplier 18, the loss of future prospects comes to
Rs.1,38,240/- (8,000x12x8x18/100).
15(vii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.69,754/- towards
medical expenses. The claimant has produced medical bills as at
Exs.P16 and P17 for having taken treatment in Sri. Lakshmi
Multi-Speciality Hospital. Hence, the same does not call for any
interference of this Court.
After revisiting compensation on all the heads, the total
compensation comes to Rs.3,07,994/- as against Rs.2,41,354/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum
16. The claimants well as the Insurance Company have
challenged the judgment and award passed in
M.V.C.Nos.6639/2013 and 6640/2013. The claimants have filed
appeals in M.F.A.Nos.2421/2016 and 2422/2016 and the
Insurance Company has filed appeals in M.F.A.No.1452/2016,
1450/2016.
16(i) In M.V.C.No.6639/2013, only a blunt injury and the
same is simple in nature. The claimant was inpatient for a
period of 3 days and the medical bills to the tune of Rs.9,816/-
are produced. Having considered the same, global compensation
of Rs.20,000/- is awarded. I do not find any error committed by
the Tribunal in awarding the same.
16(ii) In M.V.C.No.6640/2013, the claim is made by the
minor aged about 9 years. She has suffered the disability of
8%. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Master
Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National
Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in ILR
2013 KAR 4891, in case of disability below 10%, the
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be awarded and the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and
suffering and the same does not call for interference of this
Court.
16(iii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the
head discomfort, inconvenience etc., and the same does not call
for interference of this Court.
16(iv) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.31,317/- towards
medical expenses. The claimant has produced the medical bills
which is marked as Ex.P26 for having spent the same for
treatment. Hence, the same does not call for interference of this
Court and no grounds to enhance the compensation.
Hence, the total compensation in all the heads works out
to Rs.1,51,317/- with interest at 6% per annum which is already
awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the
claimants as well as the Insurance Company are liable to be
dismissed. Consequently, the same are dismissed.
17. The claimant and Insurance Company have
challenged the judgment and award passed in
M.V.C.No.6641/2013. The claimant has filed the appeal in
M.F.A.No.2423/201 and the Insurance Company has filed the
appeal in M.F.A.No.1449/2016.
17(i) The claimant is aged about 23 years. The nature of
injury sustained by the claimant is L-1 compression fracture and
it is contended that he has suffered paraplegia and the same
was recovered. He was inpatient for a period of 15 days. The
Doctor has assessed the disability at 15% and there is no serious
dispute with regard to taking the disability at 15%. However,
taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- on the head of pain and
suffering and the same requires to be modified and hence,
Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the said head.
17(ii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- on the head
of loss of amenities and the same does not call for any
interference.
17(iii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,000/- on the other
incidental expense, as he was inpatient for a period of 15 days
and the same does not call for any interference of this Court.
17(iv) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- as loss of
income during laid up period. The Tribunal has committed an
error in taking the income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per
month. In the absence of any proof regarding income, notional
income ought to have been taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. If
Rs.8,000/- per month is taken, considering the nature of the
injuries and it requires 4 months to reunite the fracture, a sum
of Rs.32,000/- (8,000x4) is awarded on the head of loss of
income during laid up period.
17(v) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,62,000/- towards
loss of income. Taking the income at Rs.8,000/- per month and
disability at 15% and applying the relevant multiplier 18, the
loss of future income comes to Rs.2,59,200/-
(8,000x12x18x15/100).
17(vi) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.93,745/- towards
medical expenses which is based on the documents. Hence, I do
not find any reason to interfere with the same.
After revising compensation on all the heads, the total
compensation comes to Rs.4,70,945/- with interest at 6% per
annum as against Rs.3,36,745/- awarded by the Tribunal.
18. The claimants in M.V.C.No.6642/2013 are wife and
the son of the deceased, who was aged about 55 years and he
was working as Blacksmith.
18(i) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,05,956/- towards
loss of dependency taking the income of the deceased as 5,000/-
per month. The deceased was aged about 55 years. The
Tribunal while calculating loss of dependency has added 50%
towards future prospects in the absence of any stable income,
which is erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have added 10% in
the absence of any documentary proof. In the absence of any
proof regarding income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the
notional of Rs.8,000/- per month and after adding 10% towards
future prospects, it comes to Rs.8,800/- and from Rs.8,800/-,
1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expense since, the
claimants are the wife and son which comes to Rs.5,867/- and
after applying relevant multiplier 11, the loss of dependency
comes to Rs.7,74,444/- (5,867x12x11).
18(ii) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,95,000/- towards
other incidental expenses which is on the higher side. In view of
the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards other incidental expenses.
18(iii) The claimants have also produced medical bills to
the extent of Rs.21,074/- and the same has not been considered
by the Tribunal. When such being the case, when the deceased
died subsequent to the treatment, the Tribunal ought to have
considered the same. Hence, a sum of Rs.21,074/- is awarded
towards medical expenses.
After revisiting compensation on all the heads, the total
compensation comes to Rs.8,65,518/- with interest at 6% per
annum as against Rs.7,00,956/- awarded by the Tribunal.
19. Having considered the documents available on
record and the relevant factors the judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified holding that adding of 50% towards future
prospects and deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses in
injury cases is erroneous. Hence, I answer point No.(1) as
'Partly Affirmative', except M.F.A.Nos.2421/2016, 2422/2016,
1450/2016 and 1452/2016 and point No.(2) as 'Affirmative'.
Point No.(4)
20. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeals filed by the Insurance Company in
M.F.A.Nos.1448/2016, 1453/2016, 1449/2016 and
1451/2016 are partly allowed. In view of disposal of
the appeal in M.F.A.No.1449/2016, I.A.No.3/2016 for
stay does not survive for consideration.
(ii) The appeals filed by the Insurance Company in
M.F.A.Nos.1452/2016 and 1450/2016 are dismissed.
(iii) The appeal filed by the claimant in
M.F.A.No.2419/2016 challenging the judgment and
award passed in M.V.C.No.6637/2013 dated
16.09.2015 is allowed in part granting compensation
of Rs.10,30,752/- with interest at 6% per annum as
against Rs.7,63,752/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) The appeal filed by the claimant in
M.F.A.No.2420/2016 challenging the judgment and
award passed in M.V.C.No.6638/2013 dated
16.09.2015 is allowed in part granting compensation
of Rs.3,07,994/- with interest at 6% per annum as
against Rs.2,41,354/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(v) The appeal filed by the claimant in
M.F.A.No.2421/2016 challenging the judgment and
award passed in M.V.C.No.6639/2013 dated
16.09.2015 is dismissed.
(vi) The appeal filed by the claimant in
M.F.A.No.2422/2016 challenging the judgment and
award passed in M.V.C.No.6640/2013 dated
16.09.2015 is dismissed.
(vii) The appeal filed by the claimant in
M.F.A.No.2423/2016 challenging the judgment and
award passed in M.V.C.No.6641/2013 dated
16.09.2015 is allowed in part granting compensation
of Rs.4,70,945/- with interest at 6% per annum as
against Rs.3,36,745/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(viii) The appeal filed by the claimants in
M.F.A.No.2424/2016 challenging the judgment and
award passed in M.V.C.No.6642/2013 dated
16.09.2015 is allowed in part granting compensation
of Rs.8,65,518/- with interest at 6% per annum as
against Rs.7,00,956/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(ix) The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the difference amount within six weeks from
today.
(x) The amount, if any deposited by the Insurance
Company before this Court is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
(xi) The Registry is directed to transmit the TCR to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
