Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri. Yunus Basha S/O Late Raheem Sab on 16 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3834
MFA No. 102611 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102611 OF 2016 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100017 OF 2018
IN MFA NO.102611/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
OPPOSITE TO RADHIKA TALKIES, BALLARI,
NOW AT DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SHREE SHANKARA COMPLEX,
OPP: SONY COMPLEX, PARVATHI NAGAR,
MAIN ROAD, BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLAN
(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. YUNUS BASHA S/O. LATE RAHEEM SAB
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
SAMREEN
AYUB R/O: D. HIREHAL VILLAGE,
DESHNUR NOW AT: RESHMI DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
AYUB DESHNUR
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI.
Date: 2024.02.23
14:32:54 +0530
2. K. BHOJARAJ S/O. K. ERANNA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: BANDIMOTE AREA, 4TH WARD,
OPP. TO WEAR HOUSE, BALLARI.
3. K. AMARESH PATIL S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PANNARAJ COMPOUND FORT,
BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED;
R3 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3834
MFA No. 102611 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2018
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.772/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.3,41,560/- WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100017/2018:
BETWEEN:
YUNUS BASHA S/O. LATE RAHEEM SAB,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: D. HIREHAL VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDENT OF RESHMI DEPARTMENT,
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. M.AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K. BHOJARAJ S/O. K. ERANNA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY
BEARING REGN. NO.MYG.8289,
R/O: BANDIMOTE AREA, 4TH WARD,
OPPOSITE TO WEAR HOUSE, BALLARI-583101.
2. K. AMARESH PATIL S/O. BASAVANAGOUDA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REGN. NO.MYG.8289,
R/O: PANNARAJ COMPOUND FORT,
BALLARI-583101.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
OPPOSITE TO RADHIKA TALKIES,
BALLARI-583101,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA No.102611/2016 IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 05.4.2016 PASSED IN MVC No.772/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE MEMBER, MACT-XII, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3834
MFA No. 102611 of 2016
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2018
THESE APPEAL AND MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appeal by the Insurance Company as well as the claimant
challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in MVC
No.772/2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII,
Ballari dated 05.04.2016.
2. Facts in brief are as under:
2.1. In a road traffic accident Smt. Jubeda Bee W/o.
Late Rasool Sab lost her life. Accident occurred on 11.01.2013
at about 3.30 p.m., opposite to Sai Bakery in Bandimote of
Ballri due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing
registration No.MYG-8289.
2.2. Claimant is a far relative who claims that the
deceased was staying with him in his house and therefore
sought for awarding suitable compensation.
3. Tribunal on contest allowed the claim petition in
part by awarding a sum of Rs.3,41,560/- as under:
1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.3,31,560-00
2 Towards funeral expenses Rs.10,000-00
Total Rs.3,41,560-00
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3834
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2018
Held Just.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company is in appeal and so also the claimant.
5. Counsel for Insurance Company Shri. S. S. Koliwad,
contended that the claimant is not a dependent as he is a far
relative of the deceased and has aged 39 years having
independent income, he cannot be termed as a dependant.
Therefore, sought for reducing the quantum of compensation.
6. Per contra, Shri. M. Amaregouda, learned counsel
for claimant reiterating the grounds urged in his appeal
memorandum sought for enhanced compensation by taking
proper monthly income and also following the dictum of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SCC
5157 and in the case of United India Insurance Company
Limited vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Others
reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076.
7. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record,
especially the claim petition averments and the complaint
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3834
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2018
averments would go to show that the claimant is a far relative
of deceased Jubeda Bee W/o. Late Rasool Sab. He is aged 39
years and having a separate income by coolie work.
9. Under these circumstances, how he was dependant
on the income of deceased is a question has not been
considered by the Tribunal in a proper manner. Unless the
claimant shows that he was dependant on the income of Jubeda
Bee, awarding compensation on the head of loss of dependency
would not arise at all.
10. Accordingly, the claimant could be entitled to a
sum of Rs.40,000/- on the ground of love and affection, loss of
consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards conventional head
following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur (supra).
11. Therefore, the compensation that is awardable to
the claimant is in a sum of Rs.70,000/- maximum which is just
compensation.
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,41,560/-
including the head of loss of dependency.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3834
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2018
13. Therefore, a case is made out by the Insurance
Company to reduce the quantum of compensation from
Rs.3,41,560/- to Rs.70,000/-.
14. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimant
needs to be rejected.
15. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal filed by the Insurance
Company in MFA No.102611/2016 is allowed
in part.
(ii) The claimant is entitled compensation
to a sum of Rs.70,000/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till realization as against the sum of
Rs.3,41,560/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) Consequently appeal filed by the
claimant in MFA Crob No.100017/2018 is
hereby rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3834
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2018
(iv) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal to the extent of
Rs.70,000/- and balance amount to be
returned to the Insurance Company under due
identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
