Karnataka High Court
Baswaraj S/O Kanteppa Humnabade And Ors vs Paresh Birari And Anr on 29 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
MFA No.201220 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201220 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. BASWARAJ
S/O KANTEPPA HUMNABADE,
AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
R/O ALIABAD-J,
TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
2. PUSHPA
W/O KUSHAL,
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ R/O ALIABAD-J,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH NOW AT NAGUR-M,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TQ: AURAD-B,
DIST : BIDAR - 585 401.
3. SANTOSH
S/O KANTEPPA HUMNABADE,
AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC:NIL,
R/O ALIABAD-J,
TQ: BIDAR - 585 401.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MANURE ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
MFA No.201220 of 2017
AND:
1. PARESH BIRARI
S/O KRISHNAKANTH BIRARI,
ROOM, NO.15, S.K.BLOCK,
NO.2, OFFICERS MESS,
406 AIR FORCE STATION,
BIDAR, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
2. GENERAL MANAGER HDFC IRGO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BOMBAY, BRANCH OFFICE,
KANNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE,
(UNDER OVER NOTE BEARING
NO.232020030485350000 WHICH
IS VALID FROM DATED 31.07.2012 TO
30.07.2013, MIDNIGHT)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHASHIKALA JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD IN M.V.C. NO.600/2013 DATED 23.11.2016,
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. AND PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., AT BIDAR BY ALLOWING THE MISC.
FIRST APPEAL FOR ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY,
RAJESH RAI K J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
MFA No.201220 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants-
claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 23.11.2016 passed in MVC No.600/2013 by the
Court of Addl. MACT and Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM,
Bidar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents are the
respondents.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that, on 24.06.2013 at bout 8.15 a.m.,
the deceased mother of the petitioners along with the
petitioner No.1 to take their photos for the purpose of
ration card traveled in an auto from Naubad, Bidar road
and got down near Papanash Gate-II and when they were
crossing the road to go to photo studio, the rider of the
motorbike bearing Reg.No.KA-38-L-1931 came from Bidar
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
Bus stand in a rash and negligent manner with high speed
and dashed against mother of the petitioners. Due to the
said impact, she sustained grievous injury, internal injury
to stomach, on the back and below left knee and became
unconscious. Later, she was shifted to Govt. Hospital,
Bidar and since she could not recover, died due to the said
injuries on the same day. In this regard, the petitioners
lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police, who
after investigation laid the charge-sheet. The petitioners
filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166
of M.V. Act claiming compensation.
4. After service of notice, respondent No.1-owner
and respondent No.2 appeared and filed written
statements denying the contents of claim petition and
sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
6. In order to substantiate the claim, petitioner
No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 09
documents as Exs.P1 to P9. Respondents have not led
evidence either oral or documentary.
7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence and
considering the material on record, allowed the petition in
part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners
have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
8. Heard Sri Sanganabasava B. Patil, learned
counsel for Sri Manure Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for
petitioners and Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel
for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
9. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has failed to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
consider the evidence and material documents placed
before it. He would further contend that P.W.1 deposed
about the manner in which the accident caused and
injuries suffered by his mother due to negligence riding of
rider of the motorbike and also about the income of the
deceased. However, without considering those aspects,
the Tribunal passed the impugned award without granting
any compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'.
10. It is further contended that the petitioners are
very much dependents on the income of the deceased and
to that effect P.W.1 categorically deposed in his evidence.
In spite of that, the Tribunal failed to grant any such
compensation under that head. Alternatively, he contends
that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal
has rightly passed the award without granting
compensation under the head loss of dependency, by
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case, a global compensation may be awarded.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
11. Refuting the above submissions, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
contend that the Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence placed before it, rightly passed the
award and same does not call for any interference at the
hands of this Court.
12. We have perused the records and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
13. In this case, the occurrence of the accident so
also the coverage of insurance policy of the offending
vehicle by the second respondent is not in dispute. This
appeal is only restricted to the quantum of compensation.
On careful perusal of the evidence and the documents
placed before us, it could be seen that the Tribunal after
considering the entire materials rightly held that the
petitioners are not entitled for compensation under the
head of loss of dependency. Though the learned counsel
for the petitioners contend that the petitioners are totally
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
dependent on the income of the deceased, in the evidence
of P.W.1 he categorically admitted that himself and the
petitioner No.2 were got married. In regard to which, a
suggestion was made to P.W.1 during his cross-
examination that he and petitioner No.3 are residing
separately, the same was denied by P.W.1. Considering
the overall evidence so also the fact that there is no such
rebuttal evidence adduced by the petitioners, the Tribunal
has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to the
petitioners and the said award was not challenged by the
Insurance Company. Under such circumstances, we are of
the considered view that the petitioners are entitled for a
global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3411-DB
(b) The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is modified.
(c) The petitioners are entitled for a global
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
(d) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced global
compensation amount with interest before the
Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(e) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court
records to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
Ct:VK
