Partly allowed

Smt. Sakubai W/O Kalidas Kadam v. Nijamuddin S/O Mainuddin Shaikh and Anr.

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2013MFA/30418/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court remitted the claimant to the Tribunal to recalculate compensation by enhancing the loss of dependency amount and other heads, directing the insurer to deposit the balance.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,64,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the insurer within eight weeks.

Smt. Sakubai W/O Kalidas Kadam Vs Nijamuddin S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30418/2013 (MV)

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.Sakubai, W/o Kalidas Kadam, Aged about 49 years, Occ; Coolie, R/o Dobale Galli, Bijapur. …. Appellant.

¶8

(By Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant, Adv.)

¶9

And:

¶10

1 Nijamuddin, S/o Mainuddin Shaikh, Major, Occ;Owner of Tata 407, No.MH-25/8070, R/o A/P Naladurga, Tuljapur Tq., Dist. Osmanabad (MH) 413 501.

¶11

2 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Limited, Tulajapur, Policy No.162781/31.11.01, 0000026 validity 2.8.2011 to 1.8.2012, locally Reptd. by the Manager, United India Insurance Co. Limited, SS Front Road, Bijapur. …. Respondents.

¶12

(By Sri J. Augustin, Adv. for R2 Notice to R1 dispensed with)

¶13

¶14

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 22.1.2013 in MVC No.1195/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Fast Track Court-I/II, Bijapur, etc.

¶15

This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The claimant is the wife of Kalidas Kadam. Kalidas Kadam

¶18

died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.7.2012. Therefore,

¶19

the claimant filed MVC No.1195/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Fast Track Court-I/II, Bijapur seeking compensation on account of the death of her husband in the aforesaid motor vehicle accident.

¶20

The claim petition was opposed by the second respondent-

¶21

Insurance Company by filing written statement. The Tribunal has framed relevant issues. The appellant has examined herself as P.W1 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 have been marked in her evidence.

¶22

The respondents have not let in any oral evidence. The Insurance Policy is marked by consent as Ex.R1. On appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of

¶23

¶24

Rs.3,08,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit by order dated 22.1.2013.

¶25

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was working as an agricultural labourer. He was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken only Rs.4,000/- per month as his income for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency. It is submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is also on a lower side.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award. It is argued that the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of her contention that her husband was earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶27

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

¶28

¶29

There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and

¶30

the liability of the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation. The only question for consideration is whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is adequate?

¶31

The claimant was examined as P.W2. In her evidence, she has deposed that her husband was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. He was an agricultural coolie. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company, the claimant has not produced any documents in support of the said contention. The accident had occurred on 12.7.2012. The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of the accident. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to hold that the claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The multiplier applicable is 9. By taking the income at Rs.6,000/per month with the application of multiplier 9 and after deducting 1/3^rd of the income towards his personal expenses, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. An additional sum of Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded towards

¶32

¶33

compensation on all other heads. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,72,000/-.

¶34

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,08,000/- which has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.1,64,000/-. The said sum of Rs.1,64,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶35

In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. The second respondent – Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appellant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation on its deposit. No costs.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE.

¶37

BMM/-

Smt. Sakubai W/O Kalidas Kadam v. Nijamuddin S/O Mainuddin Shaikh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sakubai W/O Kalidas Kadam v. Nijamuddin S/O Mainuddin Shaikh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra S/O Shivappa Hadali, Vs Aminoddin S/O Mastan Mulla

Venkatesh @ Vyankatsh S/O Giridhar Prajapati Vs Afifunisa S/O Rehman Khailur Shaikh

Kirankumar S/O Shivaputrappa Kinagi Vs Imam Sadiq Abdul Razzak Dafedar

Bankimroy S/O Upanroy Vs Shivayogi Swami

Abdul Raheem S/O Mohammed Osman Anr. Vs Abdul Razak S/O Abdul Anr.

Smt. Maddamma W/O Yesanna Vs Anil S/O Amarsingh Ors.