Karnataka High Court
The Manager Reliance vs Mohd. Salauddin And Ors on 16 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, V Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
M.F.A. NO.202224/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Manager
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Club Road, Desai Cross
Hubli.
... Appellant
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mohd. Salauddin
S/o. Mohd. Mainoddin
Shaik, Age: 28 years
Occ: Student
2. Fouziya
D/o. Mohd. Mainoddin Shaik
Age: 27 years, Occ: House hold
Both R/o. Rajeshwar
Tq: Basavakalyan
Dist: Bidar - 585 401
2
3. Naziya Begum
W/o. Syed Yusuf
D/o. Shaik Mainoddin
Age: 32 years, Occ: H.Hold
R/o. Bhaskar Nagar
Chitguppa, Tq: Humnabad
Dist.Bidar - 585 401
4. Mr. Vijay Dnyaneshwar Khopade
Age: Major
Occ: Business & Owner of Tempo
No.MH-12/HD-4114, R/o. Vadga Dalache
Tal Bhore, Pune - 412 206
... Respondents
(By Smt. Neeva M. Chimkod, Adv. For R1 to 3;
R4 served)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, praying to allow this appeal and
set aside the judgment and award dated 06.08.2018 passed by
the Senior Civil Judge & Addl.MACT, Basavakalyan in MVC
No.675/2013, in the interest of justice and equity.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, V. Srishanand
J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is by the appellant-Insurance
Company challenging the impugned judgment and award passed
in MVC No.675/2013 dated 06.08.2018 by the learned Senior
Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Basavakalyan (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed contending that on
10.02.2013, the deceased - Mohammed Mainuddin Shaikh was
proceeding on his Scooter bearing No.MH.01/E-3258 towards
Humnabad on his personal work. When he reached near Chidri
Bypass Road, Humnabad on NH-9 at about 3.15 p.m., a Eicher
Tempo bearing No.MH.12/HD-4114 came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the Scooter. Due to the
said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries
and died on the spot itself. The claimants are the son and
daughters laid a claim for awarding suitable compensation in
respect of the accident.
3. In view of the pleadings of the claimants, the
Tribunal raised following issues:
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, one
Mohd. Mainoddin Shaik S/o. Mohd.
Bashiruddin Shaik died in the Motor Vehicle
accident by the Tempo bearing Reg.
No.MH.12/HD-4114 on 10.02.2013 at about
03.15. pm?
2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If yes, how much and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
4. In order to prove the issues, claimant No.1 got
examined himself as PW.1 and on behalf of the petitioners, the
Administrative officer, Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport
(BEST) Goregaon Depot, Mumbai is examined as PW.2 and
relied on 14 documents, which were exhibited and marked as
Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of the respondents, the Legal Officer
of respondent No.2-Insurance Company was examined as
RW.1.
5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded a sum of Rs.29,89,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
form the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by
the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant -
Insurance Company.
6. In the appeal memorandum, following grounds have
been raised:
x That the Award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to
the facts of the case besides being erroneous, hence
the impugned Award deserves to be set aside.
x That the Tribunal without consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence has passed the award, in a
mechanical manner, which has led into gross
miscarriage of justice.
x That the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the
accident occurred due to sole negligence of the rider of
the motorcycle, and as can be seen from EX.P-2, which
clearly fortify the fact that the rider of the motorcycle
was on the wrong side of the road and was riding
without any protective gears. Hence the impugned
award is not sustainable in eye of law.
x That the Tribunal ought to have applied the theory of
Res-ipso-loquitor to the present case inasmuch as the
very occurrence of the Accident was sufficient to
sustain the contention of the Appellant with regard to
negligence. Hence the award impugned is
unsustainable in the eye of law.
x That the Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the
respondents 1 to 3 are major children of the deceased
and are not dependents, hence the Tribunal erred in
deducting 2/3 instead of 1/3 and should have granted
the compensation under the head of loss of estate.
x That the Tribunal without making any deduction
towards the income tax has blindly calculated the loss
of dependency, and the Tribunal has failed to apply split
multiplier as the deceased was aged above 53 years
and has service of only 6-7 more years. Hence the
impugned award needs to be interfered with.
x That the Tribunal has awarded compensation without
proper application of mind and has not considered the
benefits accrued to the claimants from his death from
the Corp., therefore the impugned award deserves to
be interfered with.
x Viewed from any angle the award passed by the
Tribunal is unjustifiable 16. and illogical which needs to
be interfered with.
7. Reiterating the above grounds, the learned counsel
for the appellant Sri Subhash Mallapur, focused on the ground
that the Trial Court ought to have applied split multiplier while
computing the quantum of compensation.
8. In reply, the said contention was opposed to by the
respondent placing reliance on the latest Judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of N. Jayasree and Ors. Vs.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. In
Civil Appeal No.6451 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P(C.)
No.14558 of 2019).
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival
contentions of the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
The Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and
award, has taken the income of the deceased based on the
salary drawn by the deceased. The salary certificate is marked
as Ex.P10.
10. Applying the legal principles enunciated in the case
of N. Jayashree supra, the quantum of compensation arrived at
by the Tribunal is just and proper. Therefore, the contentions
urged on behalf of the appellant that Trial Court ought to have
applied the split multiplier for computation of the quantum of
compensation cannot be countenanced in law.
11. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal grounds.
Hence, pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal sans merit and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KA
