Dismissed

Laxmi W/O Ashok Mustagir Anr. v. Khaja Hussain Anr.

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2013MFA/30559/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the claimants' petition seeking enhancement of compensation. The Court rejected the argument to enhance income and multiplier, holding the awarded compensation was just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal seeking enhancement of compensation was dismissed with no costs.

Laxmi W/O Ashok Mustagir Anr. Vs Khaja Hussain Anr. — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30559/2011 (MV)

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Laxmi, W/o Ashok Mustagir, Aged about 39 years, Occ;Household.

¶9

2 Ashok, S/o Chandrayya Mustagir, Aged about 43 years, Occ; Agriculture.

¶10

Both are r/o Wadigera Village, Shahapur Tq., Yadgir Dist. …. Appellants.

¶11

(By Sri V.N. Miskin, Adv.)

¶12

And:

¶13

1 Khaja Hussain, Major, Occ;Driver of NEKRTC, Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-9/F-2496, R/o Depot No.1 , NEKRTC Bus Depot, Raichur.

¶14

¶15

2 The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC Bus Depot, Opp.RTO Office, Raichur. …. Respondents.

¶16

(By Smt. Preeti Patil, Adv. for R2 R1 served)

¶17

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 12.10.2010 in MVC No.512/2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, MACT-I, Raichur, etc.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The claimants are the parents of one Ashappa. Ashappa died

¶21

in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.8.2009. The claimants

¶22

filed MVC No.512/2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge MACT-I at Raichur, seeking compensation on account of the death of their son Ashappa.

¶23

The respondent-Corporation has entered appearance in the

¶24

case and filed written statement opposing the claim petition. On the

¶25

basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant

¶26

¶27

issues. The parties have let in evidence in support of their case. On appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 12.10.2010 has awarded compensation of Rs.4,23,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶28

Admittedly, the appeal filed by the second respondentCorporation challenging its liability to pay compensation has been dismissed by this Court in MFA No.30570/2011 on 12.8.2011.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He was running a kirana shop and as also a dabha and was getting income of Rs.6,000/- per month each of the business. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken his income in a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month for computation of loss of dependency. His mother was aged 38 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier 15 instead of 14.

¶30

¶31

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶32

second respondent-Corporation has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.

¶33

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned

¶34

Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

¶35

As stated above, the appeal filed by the second respondentCorporation has already been dismissed holding that the Corporation is liable to pay compensation.

¶36

In the cause title of the claim petition, the age of the mother is stated as 38 years and the age of the father is shown as 42 years. In the claim petition, the claimants have stated that the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. In the post mortem report, the age of the deceased is stated as 25 years. If the age of the deceased is 25 years, the age of the mother cannot be less than 40 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier 14, which is just and proper. According to the claimants, the deceased was

¶37

¶38

running a kirana shop and also a dabha. The claimants have not produced any materials to show that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the accident had occurred on 17.8.2009, the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is just and reasonable. Accordingly, appropriate compensation has been awarded towards loss of dependency. A sum of Rs.45,000/- has also been awarded under all other heads. 50% of the income has been deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,23,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. In my opinion, the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation. The appeal is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE.

¶40

BMM/-

Laxmi W/O Ashok Mustagir Anr. v. Khaja Hussain Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi W/O Ashok Mustagir Anr. v. Khaja Hussain 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

Smt. Mangalamma W/O Late Vijayakumar Vs Rangayya Swamy Alias Gangayya S/O Virupakshayya

Beerappa S/O Siddappa Pujari Vs Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

Mahamood S/O Chandsab Shaikh Vs Malleshappa S/O Shivaraya Walikar and Anr.

Smt Ratna W/O Channaveerappa Gadad Ors. Vs Basavaraj @ Somashekar S/O Malleshappa Sajjan

Smt Mumtaz Begum Vs Smt Sharifa Bee

Sridevi W/O Alte Mallikarjun Isapnore Vs Haiyyali S/O Muttappa Pujari and Anr.