Karnataka High Court
Gurunathasa S/O. Manoharsa Baddi vs Smt. Kripa W/O. Vittal Baddi on 28 July, 2023
Bench: M.G.Umajpresided Bymguj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7916
MFA No. 103615 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103615/2017(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. GURUNATHASA S/O. MANOHARSA BADDI,
AGE:54 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.11, PRABHAT COLONY,
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBLLI, DIST:DHARWAD.
2. SMT. AMBIKA W/O. GURUNATHSA BADDI,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLOD,
R/O. H.NO.11, PRABHAT COLONY,
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KRIPA W/O. VITTAL BADDI,
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally
signed by R/O: AZAD COLONY, KESHWAPUR,H.NO.1,
VINAYAKA MANJUNATH NIVAS, HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.
BV
2. VILAS S/O. NIVRUTTI PATIL,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O. A/P 968/1, BALIKRE, TALKA KAGAL,
DIST:KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA.
3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
E-8,EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURAM, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI RAJASHEKAR HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7916
MFA No. 103615 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.887/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
I-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in M.V.C.No.887/2013 have
preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 on the file of the
learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT.,
Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') awarding
compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum, from the date of petition till realization, which is to
be paid by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
Being aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.3 and 4
before the Tribunal being the parents of the deceased have
preferred this appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7916
MFA No. 103615 of 2017
2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Raghavendra Purohit
for Sri. Dinesh M.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
appellants, Sri. Rajashekhar Halli, learned counsel for
respondent No.1, Sri. Shivaraj S.Ballolli, learned counsel
respondent No.2 and Sri. Suresh S.Gundi, learned counsel
for respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
these appellants were arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 4 in
the claim petition filed by the wife of the deceased. The
Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- vide
its judgment and award dated 28.02.2017. The wife of the
deceased Smt. Kripa had preferred MFA.No.100085/2022
before this Court. The same was came to be allowed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment and award
dated 11.10.2022. The compensation that is payable for the
death of the deceased was enhanced to Rs.15,16,344/-.
Therefore, he would submit that, considering the
enhancement of compensation in the connected
MFA.No.100085/2022, the present appeal may be disposed
of by upholding the apportionment of compensation between
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7916
MFA No. 103615 of 2017
wife and the parents of the deceased as done by the
Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 before this
Court who is the claimant before the Tribunal and learned
counsel for respondent No.3- insurer admit the submissions
made and submit no objection in disposing of the appeal
accordingly.
5. Learned counsel have produced the copy of the
judgment and award dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.100085/2022.
6. Perused the same. In the light of the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned judgment and award
passed the Tribunal requires interference of this
Court?
7. My answer to the above point is in the Affirmative
for the following:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7916
MFA No. 103615 of 2017
REASONS
8. It is not in dispute that the deceased Vittal Baddi
died in the road traffic accident and his wife Smt. Kripa filed
M.V.C.No.887/2013 before the Tribunal seeking
compensation. The parents of the deceased were arrayed as
respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Tribunal passed the impugned
judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 awarding
compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realization. The amount
of compensation was apportioned amongst the wife and the
parents of the deceased in the ratio of 40:20:40.
9. Admittedly the claimant in M.V.C.No.887/2013
being the wife of the deceased challenged the impugned
judgment and award by filing MFA.No.100085/2022 and the
same was came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide judgment and award dated 11.10.2022
enhancing the compensation to Rs.15,61,344/- with interest
at 6% per annum and also confirming the apportionment
made by the Tribunal amongst the legal representatives.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to discuss more on the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7916
MFA No. 103615 of 2017
subject to re-affirm the judgment and award passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.100085/2022,
enhancing the compensation. The appeal is liable to be
disposed of accordingly. Hence, I answer the above point in
the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
28.02.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.887/2013 on the file
of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional
MACT., Hubballi is already modified as per the
judgment and award dated 11.10.2022 passed in
MFA.No.100085/2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court. Placing the same on record, it is held
that the appellants herein are entitled for the
enhanced compensation in the ratio of 20:40 as
held by the Tribunal. Needless to state that the
remaining 40% is already allotted to the share of
the wife of the deceased in MFA.No.100085/2022.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7916
MFA No. 103615 of 2017
Office is directed to communicate this judgment to the
Tribunal.
SD/-
JUDGE
RH
