Karnataka High Court
Chandrika @ Chandramma vs M.D. Jabiulla on 2 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13445
MFA No. 7737 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7737 OF 2015(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRIKA @ CHANDRAMMA
C/O LATE CHANDRU.N @ CHANDRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2. THARUN KUMAR.N.C.
S/O LATE CHANDRU.N @ CHANDRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NEELAKUNDA VILLAGE,
MALLIPATTANA HOBLI,
ARKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. DEVIKA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.RAVINDRA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. M.D.JABIULLA
KARNATAKA
S/O M.D.SALIM
PROPRIETOR, MERCHANT TRANSPORT,
KABBANPETE, HOSADURGA,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 160.
(OWNER OF MERCHANT TRAVELS BUS
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-09-B-2299).
2. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RELIANCE CENTRE, #-19,
WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG,
BALLARD ESTATE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13445
MFA No. 7737 of 2015
MUMBAI-400 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.B.NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. ASHOK.N.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.09.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.77/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, ARKALGUD.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Smt.Devika., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.B.Ravindra., for the appellants and Sri.Ashok N.Patil.,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for orders, it is
heard finally.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts are these:
On the 25th day of August 2013, Mr.Ranjith had been to
Yalanadu Village Choultry of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk to
NC: 2024:KHC:13445
attend marriage of his relative. At about 2:45 pm., he was
coming back towards Huliyar side in a Maruthi Omni Car
bearing Registration No.KA-02-M-8854, on Hosadurga - Huliyar
road, near Hosahalli Kimara/ Handpost cross, a driver of
Merchant Travels bus bearing Registration No.KA-09-B-2299
came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner
and hit his car. Due to the forced impact, the car got damaged
and Mr.Ranjith sustained grievous bloodstain injuries on right
eye, stomach, near right neck, right hand, chest and other
parts of the body and right leg was amputed. He was shifted to
Huliyar Government Hospital. With the advice of the doctor, he
was shifted to Chikkanayakanahalli Hospital through 108
ambulance, but he died in the middle of the way to hospital.
The claimants contending that they are the dependents of the
deceased, filed claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor
Vehicles Act seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, respondents appeared through
their counsel. The first respondent did not file written
statement. The second respondent filed written statement
denying the petition averments. Among other grounds it prayed
for dismissal of the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:13445
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:22.09.2014 partly allowed the
claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,83,800/-
(Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Eight Hundred only)
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of payment and dismissed the claim
petition against petitioner No.2. It is this Judgment that is
called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out
in the Memorandum of appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation. She
argued by saying that dismissal of claim petition against the
second claimant is incorrect. Counsel submits that the second
claimant was depending on the income of his brother Ranjith,
the Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and
dismissed the claim petition against the second claimant.
Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed.
By way of reply to this contention, counsel Sri.Ashok
N.Patil., submits that the claim petition is filed under Section
NC: 2024:KHC:13445
163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal extenso referred
to the material on record and rightly awarded compensation
and the same does not require interference. Counsel therefore,
the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and the records with
utmost care.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the claim petition is filed
under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal
extenso referred to the material on record and rightly
calculated compensation under different heads and awarded
compensation of Rs.4,83,800/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Three
Thousand Eight Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
Furthermore, the second claimant was major and is not a
dependent. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim
NC: 2024:KHC:13445
petition against the second claimant. I find no reasons to
interfere with the Judgment of the Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of
merits and it is liable to be rejected.
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
