Karnataka High Court
Smt. Dilashad @ Dilsad W/O. ... vs Smt. Anusuya W/O. Siddling Naik on 17 July, 2023
Bench: M.G.Umaj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100271/2023(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DILASHAD @ DILSAD W/O. RASULSAB NADAF,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, NOW NILL,
R/O: MARAPUR, PIN: 587312,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. KU.ASLAM S/O.RASULASAB NADAF,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: MARAPUR, PIN: 587312,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. KU.NAJAMIN S/O. RASULSAB NADAF,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, NOW NILL
R/O: MARAPUR, PIN: 587312,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
Digitally 4. KUM. ANVAR S/O. RASULSAB NADAF,
signed by
VINAYAKA AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, NOW NILL
BV R/O: MARAPUR, PIN: 587312,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
R/BY NATURAL MOTHER AND MINOR
GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1.
5. ALISAB @ ALLISAB S/O. MAKTUMSAB NADAF,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MARAPUR, PIN: 587312,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. SMT. BEGUM W/O. ALISAB @ ALLISAB NADAF
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
R/O: MARAPUR, PIN: 587312,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O. SIDDLING NAIK,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O: NAYAK FORM, DEVARADDERAHATTI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN: 591304
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL,
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, NO.69, JP AND DEVI,
JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE, MILLAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560051,
TQ AND DIST. BENGALLURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUSHA V. SANGAMI, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
09.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.544/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL XIV, MUDHOL, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The claimants in MVC.No.544/2019 on the file of the
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal XIV, Mudhol
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), have preferred this
appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
award dated 09.04.2021 awarding compensation of
Rs.19,98,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date
of petition till realization payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2
are jointly and severally.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants
being the wife, children and parents of the deceased
Rasulsab have claimed compensation under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the 'M.V.Act') for his death
in the road traffic accident.
4. It is contended that on 31.08.2019 at 07:15 PM,
the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
Reg.No.KA-49/H-6563 along with claimant No.1 towards
Mahalingur from Mudhol. In the meantime, the driver of the
TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-23/A-9822 came from the
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the motorcycle. As a result of which, the rider died
at the spot. Claimant No.1 sustained grievous injuries.
5. It is stated that the deceased was aged 34 years
and he was doing agricultural work. Respondent No.1 being
the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the
offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation.
6. Respondent No.1 has not contested the matter.
Respondent No.2 filed the objections denying the contentions
taken by the claimants. However, it is admitted that the
offending vehicle was insured with the insurer at the time of
the accident. It is contented that the rider of the motorcycle
himself was negligent and also that the vehicle which was
insured was never involved in any accident.
7. On the basis of these pleadings, the following
issues were came to be framed:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
"1. Whether petitioners proves, that on 31.08.2019 at
about 07.15 pm when the petitioner No.1 and her
husband Rasulasab were proceeding on motorcycle
bearing No.KA-49/H-6563 towarda Mahalingpur from
Mudhol when they came near land of Irappa Koraddi
of Belagali village at that time TATA ACE vehicle
bearing No.KA-23/A-9822 came from opposit
direction and driver of the said vehicle was driving
the same in high speed, rash and negligent manner
while over taking another vehicle dashed to right side
of their motorcyle due to which they fell down and
her husband sustained grievous injuries and died on
the spot?
2. Whether petitioner proves the age and earning of the
deceased as on the date of the accident?
3. Whether respondent No.2 proves that as on the date of
the accident the driver of TATA ACE vehicle bearing
No.KA-23/A-9822 was not holding valid and effective
driving licence?
4. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If
so to what extent and from whom?
5. What order or award?"
8. Claimants examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1
to 15 in support of their contentions. Respondent No.2 got
marked Ex.R1 in support of its defence.
9. The Tribunal after taking into consideration of all
these materials on record, answered issue No.1 in the
affirmative and held that the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.19,98,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
10. Claimants have preferred this appeal being
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation determined by
the Tribunal.
11. Heard Sri. Hanamant R.Latur, learned counsel for
the appellants and learned counsel Smt. Anusha V.Sangami
for Sri. S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the Tribunal committed an error in not determining the just
compensation towards loss of dependency. Hence, he prays
for allowing the appeal.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
insurer opposing the appeal submitted that the Tribunal has
awarded just compensation and there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and award, but
however, she contends that the award of interest at 9% per
annum is without any basis. Accordingly, prays for passing
an appropriate order.
14. Perused the materials on record.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
15. In view of the above, the point that would arise
for consideration is:
Whether the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal requires
interfere of this Court?
16. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative
for the following:
REASONS
17. The undisputed facts of the case are that the
deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident
which occurred on 31.08.2019. Even though the insurer
denied the factum of accident and negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle, the claimants are successful in proving
the same and such finding by the tribunal is not challenged
by the insurer.
18. As per post mortem report, the deceased was
aged 34 years and therefore, the appropriate multiplier
would be "16'. In the absence of any material to prove the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
income of the deceased, the guidelines issued for
determination of compensation before the Lok Adalath would
be taken into consideration and the income could be taken at
Rs.13,250/- per month. Since there were 6 dependents on
the deceased, 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards
his personal expenses. Thus, his monthly income would be
Rs.9,938/- (i.e., Rs.13,250 less 1/4th ). The claimants are
entitled for compensation towards loss of future prospects at
40% and therefore the claimants are entitled for
Rs.26,71,334/- (i.e., Rs.9,938 [income] X 12 [months] X 16
[multiplier] + 40% [future prospects]) towards loss of
dependency.
19. The Tribunal has awarded reasonable
compensation on other heads. Therefore, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the claimants are
entitled for total compensation as under:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
(In Rupees)
1. Loss of dependency 26,71,334.00
2. Loss of estate 15,000.00
3. Funeral expenses 15,000.00
4. Loss of consortium 2,40,000.00
Total compensation 29,41,334.00
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
Amount awarded by the Tribunal 19,98,000.00
Enhanced compensation 9,43,334.00
20. The award of interest at 9% per annum is not
supported by any reason. Therefore, the claimants are
entitled for interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced
amount of compensation.
21. In view of the above, I answer the above point in
the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1) The appeal is allowed.
2) The impugned judgment and award dated
09.04.2021 passed in M.V.C.No.544/2019 on
the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Tribunal XIV, Mudhol is modified. It is held that
the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.29,41,334/- as against
Rs.19,98,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7339
MFA No. 100271 of 2023
enhanced amount from the date of petition till
realization.
Office is directed to draw the award accordingly.
Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of
judgment and award.
SD/-
JUDGE
RH
