[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Law Officer vs Smt. Jainabi And Ors on 27 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
MFA No. 200069 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200891 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200069 OF 2020 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200891 OF 2019 (MV-D)
IN MFA No. 200069/2020:
BETWEEN:
THE LAW OFFICER,
SOLAPUR MAHANAGAR PALIKA TRANSPORT,
NEAR SANGAMESHWAR COLLEGE,
SAT RASTA SOLAPUR-413 003.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SMT. JAINABI W/O KASHIM PINJARI,
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: COOLI.
2. ASLAM S/O KASHIM PINJARI,
AGE: 20 YEARS OCC: EARLIER STUDENT,
NOW NOT KNOWN.
3. RUKSABA D/O KASHIM PINJARI,
AGE: 15 YEARS OCC: STUDENT.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
MFA No. 200069 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200891 of 2019
HC-KAR
4. SHAHID S/O KASHIM PINJARI,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: EARLIER STUDENT.
5. SMT. INATBI W/O MOULANA PINJARI,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
ALL R/O SHAIKH COLONY VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREMA M. VAKRANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS
IN JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.318/2016 DATED
14.01.2019 OF THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VII,
VIJAYAPUR, AWARDING RS.12,22,000/- WITH INTEREST
THEREON AT 9% AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD.
IN MFA NO. 200891/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAINABI W/O KASHIMPINJARI @ NADAF,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.
2. ASLAM S/O KASHIMPINJARI @ NADAF,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
3. RUKSANA D/O KASHIMPINJARI @ NADAF,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
4. SHAHID S/O KASHIMPINJARI @ NADAF,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
5. SMT. INATBI W/O MOULAPINJARI @ NADAF,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
APPELLANTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE MINORS,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
MFA No. 200069 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200891 of 2019
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1,
ALL ARE R/O SHAIKH COLONY, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PREMA M. VAKRANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE LAW OFFICER,
SOLAPUR MAHANAGARPALIKA TRANSPORT,
NEAR SANGAMESHWARA COLLEGE,
SAT RASTA, SOLAPUR-413 003,
STATE MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 14.1.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND MEMBER MACT V, VIJAYAPURA,
IN M.V.C.NO.318/2016 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS
PRAYED FOR IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM PETITION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
HC-KAR
2. These appeals are arising out of the Judgment and
award dated 14.01.2019 passed in MVC No.318/2016 on the
file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No.V, Vijayapura, (for short 'the
Tribunal') awarding compensation to the claimants.
3. It is the case of the claimants that, on 08.09.2015,
the husband of the claimant No.1-Kashim was proceeding in a
motorcycle as a pillion rider from his village to Solapur and
when he reached near Sindagi Oil Mill on Hyderabad-Solapur
road, a bus bearing registration No.MH-13/Annexure--9606
dashed to the motorcycle in which the said Kashim was
travelling and as a result of the same he died in the road traffic
accident. Hence, the claimants have preferred MVC
No.318/2016.
4. After service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying the
averments made in the petition. In order to establish their
case, the claimants have examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and
P.W.2 and got marked 09 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. No
oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
HC-KAR
side. The tribunal, after considering the material on record by
its Judgment and award dated 14.01.2019 awarded
compensation of Rs.12,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Feeling aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by
the tribunal, the claimants have preferred MFA
No.200891/2019 seeking enhancement of compensation. On
the other hand, the Solapur Mahanagar Palika Transport has
preferred MFA No.200069/2020 challenging the liability as to
the jurisdiction of the vehicle in question and accordingly,
sought for setting aside the Judgment and award passed by the
tribunal.
5. Sri. Sanjay M.Joshi, learned counsel for the Solapur
Mahanagar Palika Transport in MFA No.200069/2020 argued
that, the alleged accident occurred near Sindagi Oil Mill on
Hyderabad-Solapur road and the respondent-company is
situated at Solapur and therefore, the claim petition ought to
have been filed before the jurisdictional tribunal and therefore,
sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued by Sri.
Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that, the award of compensation is on the higher side and
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
HC-KAR
further the alleged accident occurred in the middle of the road
and therefore, the tribunal ought to have saddled contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and
therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, Smt. Prema M.Vakrani, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants sought to justify the impugned
Judgment and award made by the Tribunal as to the liability is
concerned, however, it is submitted that, the award of
compensation requires to be enhanced in this appeal.
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute as to the occurrence
of the accident on 08.09.2015 in which the deceased Kashim
was proceeding in a motorcycle. In respect of the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as to
jurisdiction of the Tribunal is concerned, on careful
consideration of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short 'the Act'), makes it clear that, the claim petition be
filed before the jurisdictional tribunal in whose jurisdiction the
deceased/claimants resides. In that view of the matter, since
the language employed in the aforementioned provision is clear
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
HC-KAR
and unambiguous, and as the cause title of the claimants show
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, I am of the view that, the
said contention raised by the learned counsel for the Solapur
Mahanagar Palika Transport cannot be accepted.
8. Insofar as the argument advanced as to the
contributory negligence is concerned, undisputably no sketch is
produced before the Tribunal. That apart, taking into
consideration the award of compensation, the accident is of the
year 2015 and as per the guidelines of the Karnataka Legal
Services Authority, the monthly income of the deceased has to
be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month after applying the multilier of
'16' as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Further, 40% of the future
prospects has to be added as per the Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680. Hence, the loss of dependency would be as
under:
Rs.6,000/- + 40% = Rs.8,400/-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
HC-KAR
Rs.8,400/- X 12 X 16 = Rs.16,12,800/-
9. The claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2
to 4 are the children and claimant No.5 is the mother of the
deceased. Hence, the claimants are entitled for consortium
of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal has
awarded Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and funeral
expenses which is not altered. Hence, the claimants are
entitled for the total compensation as under:
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount
1 Loss of dependency Rs.16,12,800/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
3 Transportation and funeral Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.18,27,800/-
10. Insofar as the award of interest is concerned, I
find force in the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the Solapur Mahanagar Palika Transport, in
which the Tribunal ought to have awarded the prevailing
Bank interest at 6% per annum.
11. Accordingly, I pass the following:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:616
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) Both appeals are allowed in-part;
(ii) The claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.18,27,800/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization, as against
Rs.12,22,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal;
(iii) The amount in deposit if any be
transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SVH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
CT:PK
