Sri. Laxman S/O Raosaheb Ambare vs Smt. Jaitunbai And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4722 Kant

                         1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                      PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
            MFA No. 200063/2020 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

SRI. LAXMAN
S/O. RAOSAHEB AMBARE
AGED 52 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. AT POST: NAD B.K.,
INDI TALUK,
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT - 586101

                                     ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. JAITUNBAI
       W/O. RAJESAB MULLA
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
       OCC: COOLIE

2.     MOHAMMED RAFIQ
       S/O. RAJESAB MULLA
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
       OCC: STUDENT

3.     WAZIR BHASHA
       S/O. RAJESAB MULLA
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
       OCC: STUDENT
                            2



4.   HUSSAIN BASHA
     S/O. RAJESAB MULLA
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
     OCC: STUDENT

5.   KUMARI ZEENAT
     D/O. RAJESAB MULLA
     AGED 21 YEARS
     OCC: STUDENT

     ALL ARE RESIDING
     AT NIMBAL (K.D.), INDI TALUK
     VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101

                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR H. MANUR, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 28.10.2019 PASSED BY THE MEMBER, MACT-VI,
VIJAYAPUR, IN MVC NO.781/2014.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
RAJENDRA     BADAMIKAR,   J.,  DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant, who was

respondent before the Tribunal, challenging the judgment

and award passed by the MACT-IV, Vijayapura ( for short,

'Tribunal') in MVC No.781/2014, whereby the Tribunal has

awarded a total compensation of Rs.48,63,182/-.

2. The factual matrix leading to this case are that,

on 19.02.2013 the deceased was riding the motor cycle

bearing Registration No. KA.04/S.2301 by following the

traffic rules on Indi to Almel road and was proceeding on

the left side of the road. When the deceased came near

Satalgaon Cross, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle

bearing Registration No.KA.28/W.8129, rode it from

opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and in

high speed by coming on a wrong side and lost control and

as a result dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased.

Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries over his head and other parts of the body and

succumbed to injuries at the spot. It is further asserted

that the claimants being the dependents, have spent huge

amount towards funeral expenses and deceased was aged

about 44 years serving as a Government Teacher, earning

Rs.25,042/- as a salary per month. It is further asserted

that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent

riding of the motorcyclist bearing Reg.KA-28/W-8129

owned by respondent No.1 and hence they filed claim

petition.

3. The respondent/appellant herein has appeared

and contested the matter, wherein he has admitted that he

is the owner of the offending vehicle which is involved in

the accident on 19.02.2013. It is asserted that the

deceased was riding the motor cycle without a valid driving

licence and the accident occurred because of actionable

negligence on the part of the deceased and hence he

disputed his liability.

4. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence has awarded a total compensation

of Rs.48,63,182/- to the claimants/respondents herein.

This award is being challenged by the appellant before this

court in this appeal.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the deceased has contributed to the

accident and accident has taken place due to the

actionable negligence on the part of the deceased. He

would also contend that the compensation awarded is

exorbitant and on higher side and further disputed the

compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- under conventional heads.

Hence, he has challenged the award.

      6.    Per    contra,   learned    counsel    for   the

claimants/respondents argued that the        Tribunal after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has

awarded just compensation and it does not call for any

interference.

7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that the rider of the offending motor-

cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28/W-8129 was prosecuted by

submitting the charge-sheet for the offences punishable

under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. The Tribunal

appreciating the evidence on records had held that the

accident is solely because of actionable negligence on the

part of the rider of the motor cycle owned by the appellant

herein. The appellant has not produced any material to

show that there is any contributory negligence on the part

of the deceased. Hence, the said ground raised by the

learned counsel for the appellant is unsustainable.

8. Further, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact

that the deceased was a Government Teacher and after

appreciating his salary certificate, age and other aspects,

has rightly awarded Rs.46,48,182/- under the head of loss

of dependency. Considering the documentary evidence

including the salary certificate of the deceased, who was

working in Government job, it does not call for any

interference as the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th

towards personal expenses in view of the number of

dependents. Further, the Tribunal has awarded consortium

of Rs.2,00,000/- under different heads and since there are

five claimants as per the decisions in Magma General

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @

Satwinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC 3076, the Tribunal is

justified in awarding Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants and

further it has awarded only Rs.15,000/- under the head of

loss of estate as well as funeral expenses. However,

Tribunal has not awarded any separate compensation

under the head of funeral expenses. However, the

claimants have not challenged the said award. Hence, the

Tribunal has awarded just compensation. Admittedly, the

offending vehicle owned by appellant herein was not

insured and as such the Tribunal has fastened the liability

on the appellant as he was admittedly owner of the said

vehicle. Under these circumstances, we find no illegality

or arbitrariness in the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal and hence the appeal is devoid of

any merits.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the

Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR/BL