Shri. Modinsab S/O Madarsab vs Shri. Sanju Shankar Gadkari
2022 Latest Caselaw 11932 Kant

                              -1-




                                       MFA No. 101512 of 2016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                           BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101512 OF 2016
                           (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.    SHRI. MODINSAB S/O MADARSAB @ MOHAMMADSAB
      CHAPARASHI, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
      R/O. MANOLI, TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

2.    SHRI. RAFIQ S/O. MADARSAB @ MOHAMMADSAB
      CHAPARASHI, AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
      R/O. MANOLI, TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

3.    SHRI. AFREEN W/O. HANIFSAB HASANABAR,
      AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE HOLD WORK,
      R/O. MANOLI, TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

4.    SMT. MAREMBI @ MAIRONBI W/O. MADARSAB
      @ MOHAMMADSAB CHAPARASHI,
      AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE HOLD WORK,
      R/O. MANOLI, TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

5.    SHRI. MAIBUSAB S/O. MADARSAB @ MOHAMMADSAB
      CHAPARASHI
      AGE:8 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
      R/O. MANOLI, TQ:SAUNDATTI,
      DIST:BELAGAVI.

6.    MOHAMMADGOUS S/O. MADARSAB @ MOHAMMADSAB
      CHAPARASHI, AGE:6 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
      R/O. MANOLI, TQ:SAUNDATTI,
      DIST:BELAGAVI.
      (BEING APPELLANT NO.5 AND 6
      ARE MINOR R/BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
      APPELLANT NO.4).
                             -2-




                                        MFA No. 101512 of 2016

7.   SMT. BIBIJAN W/O. KUTUBUDDIN CHAPARASHI
     CHAPARASHI,
     AGE:77 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
     R/O. MANOLI, TQ:SAUNDATTI,
     DIST:BELAGAVI.



                                                  ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.   SHRI. SANJU SHANKAR GADKARI
     AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
     R/O. H. NO.172, NETAJI GALLI,
     AGASGA, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
     (OWNER OF TATA ACE MINI GOODS
     VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA22/B/6965).

2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
     DB PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, 47 WHITES ROAD,
     CHENNIA, TAMILNADU - 600 014,
     THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     MUJAWAR ARCADE, P B ROAD,
     NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.


     (INSURER OF TATA ACE MINI GOODS VEHICLE,
     BEARING NO.KA22/B-6965, UNDER
     CERTIFICATE CUM POLICY NO.TOQ 1055640,
     VALID FROM 26.04.2013 TO 25.04.2014).



                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. G.N.RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1721/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IX-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
                               -3-




                                      MFA No. 101512 of 2016

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

Heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment

and award dated 02.04.2016 in MVC No.1721/2014, by

the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Member,

Addl. MACT, Belagavi, questioning the quantum of

compensation.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants

before the tribunal is that, on 03.07.2013 at 02.15 p.m.,

the deceased Madarsab was going to Hotel to have a tea

situated at shop of Deepak Trading company and when he

was proceeding by walk on left side of the road, the driver

of the Tata ACE Mini goods vehicle bearing registration

No.KA-22/B-6965 came from his behind in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result he

has sustained injuries and he was shifted to KLE Hospital,

MFA No. 101512 of 2016

Belagavi and thereafter he was shifted to Saudatti

Hospital. However, on 04.07.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., he

died. Hence, the claimants have made claim before the

tribunal that, he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a

coolie. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim

examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked document

at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the other hand, the respondents

got marked two documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 i.e. copy

of the Insurance policy and the driving licence

respectively. The tribunal awarded compensation of

Rs.8,33,000/- with 6% interest. Hence, the present appeal

is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants

would vehemently contend that, the trial Court has taken

the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, but the

accident is of the year 2013 the notional income as per the

Lok Adalath Chart would be Rs.7,000/- per month. The

claimants are seven in numbers and 1/4th was deducted

instead of 1/5th and the claimants are wife and children

and also the mother of the deceased. The counsel also

MFA No. 101512 of 2016

would submits that, the future prospectus has not been

added.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would submits that, in the absence of any

documentary proof the tribunal has rightly taken the

income of Rs.6,000/- and the counsel also would submits

that, the deceased was aged about 54 years as per the

postmortem report and the compensation is awarded

under the other heads and does not require any

interference at the hands of this Court.

6. Having heard the respective counsels and also

on perusal of the material available on record, the points

that would arise for consideration of this Court are :

(i) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation?

(ii) What order?

7. Answer to Point No.1 : Having heard the

respective counsel and also on perusal of the material, the

accident was occurred in the month of July, 2013 and the

MFA No. 101512 of 2016

injured was shifted to the Hospital and an amount of

Rs.4,000/- was spent towards medical bills as per Ex.P.12

(7 in numbers) and the total value of the medical bills is

Rs.4,000/-. Having taken note of the deceased was aged

about 54 year, the relevant multiplier applicable would be

'11'. Having considered the notional income of Rs.7,000/-

and 10% has to added towards future prospectus and by

adding the same, it comes to Rs.7,700/- and considering

the deduction of 1/5th, since there are seven members in

the family, including the wife, children and also the

mother, it comes to Rs.1,540/- and after deduction it

comes to Rs.6,160/-X12X11=Rs.8,13,120/-. The

claimants are seven in numbers and hence, they are

entitle for an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- under the head of

consortium and loss of love and affection and apart from

that, the claimants are entitle for Rs.33,000/- under the

had of loss of estate and funeral expenses. In all the

claimants are entitle for compensation of Rs.11,26,120/-

8. Answer to Point No.2 : In view of the above

discussions, I pass the following:

MFA No. 101512 of 2016

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The Judgment and award dated 02.04.2016 in

MVC No.1721/2014 by the IX Addl. District and Sessions

Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Belagavi, is modified. The

claimants in all are entitle for compensation of

Rs.11,26,120/- with 6% interest as against Rs.8,33,000/-

awarded by the tribunal.

(iii) The Insurance company is directed to pay the

remaining compensation amount within six weeks.

(iv) The Registry is directed to send back the TCRs,

if any to the concerned tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH