The General Manager Reliance ... vs Samiya W/O Akbar @ Akbar Ahmad
2022 Latest Caselaw 12015 Kant

                                                         -1-




                                                                 MFA No. 23602 of 2011


                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                                  DHARWAD BENCH

                                    DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                                       BEFORE
                                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23602 OF 2011 (MV-D)
                             BETWEEN:
                             1.   THE GENERAL MANAGER RELIANCE GEN.INS.CO.LTD
                                  CTS#472 V A KALBURGI SQAREDESAI CROSS,
                                  DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI
                                  NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
                                  LEGAL CLAIMS, NO.28, V FLOOR, EAST WING
                                  CENTENARY BUILDING , M.G.ROADBENGALOOR
                                                                            ...APPELLANT
                             (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI.,ADVOCATE)
                             AND:
                             1.   SAMIYA W/O AKBAR @ AKBAR AHMAD ALUR
                                  AGE;28 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE

                             2.   KHAJAMAINUDDIN S/O AKBAR @ AKBAR AHMAD ALUR
                                  AGE:3 ½ YEARS, OCC:NIL,

          Digitally signed   3.   MAHAMADROSHAN S/O AKBAR @ AKBAR AHMAD ALUR
          by J MAMATHA
          Location:
                                  AGE:2 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
J         Dharwad
MAMATHA   Date:
          2022.09.27              RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEING THE MINORS
          12:32:13
          +0530                   REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER RESPONDENT No.1 AS
                                  GUARDIAN

                                  R/O ANIHONDA HAVERI, TQ: AND DIST:HAVERI.

                             4.   DEVAPPA S/O VENKAPPA PUJAR
                                  AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS
                                  R/O:H.NO.472, CHAVADI ONIGOPANAKOPPA,
                                  HUBLI,TQ and DIST:DHARWAD
                                                                          ...RESPONDENTS
                             (BY SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADV. FOR R1,
                                  R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1,
                                   SRI V.G.HOLEYANNAVAR, ADV. FOR R4)
                               -2-




                                       MFA No. 23602 of 2011


      THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.06.2011, PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.307/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & AMACT.,
HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.6,21,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                          JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company on two

grounds, firstly, the Tribunal has failed to take note of the

contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the

motorcycle/deceased and in order to substantiate the said

contention though RW-1 is examined, the Tribunal has taken

into consideration only the registration of the case against the

driver of the offending vehicle and in order to substantiate the

said contention that the deceased himself was negligent in

riding the motorcycle, no material is placed before the Court by

the Insurance Company and hence, I do not find any merit in

the appeal to come to the conclusion that there was negligence

on the part of the deceased in causing the accident.

MFA No. 23602 of 2011

3. The second ground urged by the Insurance Company is

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher

side i.e., the Tribunal while calculating loss of dependency has

deducted only 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the

deceased instead of 1/3rd since there are 3 claimants. But, it is

seen that the Tribunal committed an error while calculating loss

of dependency wherein it has not added any amount towards

future prospects to the income of the deceased. As the

claimants have not filed any appeal or cross objection

questioning the said issue, even if 1/4th is deducted instead of

1/3rd as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company, the same is compensated towards the

future prospects which has not been done by the Tribunal.

Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal.

4. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is dismissed.

ii) The amount deposited by the Insurance

Company is ordered to be transmitted to the

Tribunal forthwith and directed to pay the

compensation amount within six weeks.

MFA No. 23602 of 2011

iii) The registry is directed to send back the TCR

forthwith.

(Sd/-) JUDGE

JM