Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Sumayya W/O Imran Patel vs Shri. Saleem S/O Mohammad Gouse ... on 4 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A. No.104010/2018 (WC)
C/W. M.F.A.NO.104373/2018
IN MFA.NO.104010/2018
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. SUMAYYA W/O IMRAN PATEL,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: PLOT NO.84/B, 7TH CROSS,
NEW VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.
2. AMMAR S/O IMRAN PATEL
AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: PLOT NO.84/B, 7TH CROSS,
NEW VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.
(SINCE PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
M/G MR.SUMAYYA W/O IMRAN PATEL PETITIONER NO.1)
....APPELLANTS
(BY SMT GEETHA K. M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SHRI. SALEEM S/O MOHAMMAD GOUSE TANKASALE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KALA MARUTI GALLI, CHIKKODI,
TQ: CHIKKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI,
(OWNER OF VEHICLE SWIFT DZIRE
BEARING REGN.NO.KA-25/6116)
:2:
1A. SHRI AMISH BALWANT GADHIA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: C-14, APARNA APARTMENTS,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, HUBBALLI,
DIST :DHARWAD,
(INSURED OF VEHICLE SWIFT DZIRE
BEARING REGN.NO.KA-25/6116)
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
PHARALE BUILDING K. C. ROAD,
NEAR PRABHAKAR TALKIES, CHIKODI-591201,
(INSURER OF SWIFT DZIRE
BEARING REGN.NO.KA-25/6116)
POLICY NO.240182/31/12/01/00000289
VALID FROM 21/04/2012 TO 20/04/2013.
3. SHRI JAHANGIR S/O ABDUL KAREEM PATEL,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: PLOT NO.84/B, 7TH CROSS,
NEW VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.
4. SMT NOORJAHAN W/O JAHANGIR PATEL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: PLOT NO.84/B, 7TH CROSS,
NEW VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.
...RESPONDENTS
(SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1A AND 3-
DISPENSED WITH)
(BY SRI S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
(BY SRI LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
ENHANCEMENT APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, BELAGAVI IN
:3:
ECA.NO.620/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE AND OTHER DATED
30.10.2018 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA.NO.104373/2018
BETWEEN
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PHARALE BUILDING, K.C. ROAD,
NEAR PRABHAKAR TALKIES,
CHIKODI,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. MR. SUMAYYA W/O. IMRAN PATEL,
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PLOT NO.84/B, 7TH CROSS,
NEW VEERABHADRA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-804403.
2. AMMAR S/O. IMRAN PATEL,
AGE:6 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O. PLOT NO.84/B, 7TH CROSS,
NEW VEERABHADRA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-804403.
(SINCE PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
MOTHER M/G MRS.SUMAYYA
W/O. IMRAN PATEL PETITIONER NO.1)
3. SHRI JAHANGIR
S/O. ABDUL KAREEM PATEL,
AGE:59 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O. PLOT NO.84/B, 7TH CROSS,
NEW VEERABHADRA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-804403.
:4:
4. SMT NOORJAHAN W/O. JAHANGIR PATEL
AGE:54 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PLOT NO.84/B,
7TH CROSS, NEW VEERABHADRA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-804403.
5. SRI SALEEM
S/O. MOHAMMED GOUSE TANKASALE,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O. KALA MARUTI GALLI,
CHIKKODI, TQ:CHIKKODI,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591201.
6. SRI AMISH BALAWANT GADHIA
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O.C-14, APARNA APARTEMNTS,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, 4TH CROSS,
HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD-580032.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT GEETHA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1& 2)
(SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3-DISPENSED WITH)
(BY SRI LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5- SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 30.10.2018, PASSED IN ECA.NO.620/2014, ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, UNDER EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.4,77,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
:5:
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
M.F.A.No.104010/2018 is filed by the dependants of
the deceased-Imran Patel and MFA.No.104373/2018 is filed
by the Insurance Company. Both the appeals arise out of
the same accident.
2. A claim was lodged by the dependants of
deceased-Imran Patel under the provisions of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 stating that while he
was working as a driver on 19.01.2013 he met with an
accident, due to which, he passed away.
3. The said claim was contested by the Insurance
Company contending that there was no contract of
insurance infavour of the employer of Imran Patel. The
Insurance Company stated that insurance policy had been
issued in the name of one Amish Balwant Gadhia and since
the deceased was not an employee of Amish Balwant
Gadhia they were not liable for compensation.
4. It is not in dispute that Amish Balwant Gadhia
had sold the car which Imran Patel was driving in favour of
Saleem Tankasale, but the registration of the said motor
vehicle had not been changed. In view of the provisions
under the Motor Vehicles Act which stipulate that an
insurance policy would stand automatically transferred on
the transfer of the motor vehicle, the argument of the
Insurance Company that they were not liable cannot be
accepted. So long as the vehicle was insured, the Insurance
Company would become liable to pay compensation if an
accident occurred out of the use of the vehicle that it had
insured. Thus, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay
compensation cannot be in doubt at all.
5. It is the case of the claimants that the Tribunal
has seriously erred in taking income of the deceased at only
Rs.4,500/- per month, when it had been categorically
stated that the deceased drawing salary of Rs.7,000/- per
month and Rs.150/- batta per day. It is no doubt true that
there is no documentary evidence to substantiate this
assertion. Having regard to the fact that the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority has prepared a chart in which
the monthly income of a victim of a motor vehicle accident
should be taken as Rs.7,000/- per month in respect of
motor vehicles accident of the year-2013, in my view,
having regard to the fact that Imran Patel was working as a
driver, it would be just and proper to determine his monthly
income as Rs.8,000/-.
6. As a consequence, by applying relevant factor of
209.92, (Rs.8,000/- per month - 50% = Rs.4,000/- X
209.92= Rs.8,39,680/-), the claimants would be entitled to
compensation of Rs.8,39,680/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- as
funeral expenses is also awarded.
1. Compensation amount
(Rs.8,000/- per month - 50% = Rs.8,39,680/-
Rs.4,000/- X 209.92=
Rs.8,39,680/-)
2. For funeral expenses Rs.5,000/-
Total compensation of Rs.8,44,680/-
7. The compensation amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days
that is from 19.02.2013.
8. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced
compensation amount along with interest within a period of
four weeks from today.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the Commissioner has apportioned the compensation
incorrectly. The Commissioner has held that the wife of
Imran Patel would be entitled to 10% and his minor son
would be entitled to 20% of the compensation, while 35%
share has been granted to each to the parents of Imran
Patel rded.
10. In my view, the Commissioner ought to have
distributed the compensation equally in favour of the
widow, minor son and the parents of the deceased. The
award is accordingly modified holding that each of the
claimants would be entitled to 25% of the compensation
awarded.
11. The compensation payable to the minor son shall
be kept in a fixed deposit in his name in any Nationalized
Bank till he attains the age of majority. His mother would
not be entitled to seek for premature of closure of the fixed
deposit.
12. Similarly, in respect of the compensation
apportioned, the parents of the Imran Patel, 50% of the
share awarded to them shall be kept in fixed deposit in their
respective names in any Nationalized Bank of their choice
and they would be entitled to withdraw accrued interest.
13. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the
claimants is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company is dismissed.
SD
JUDGE
ckk
