Partly allowed

Mubaraq S/O Gulab Attar v. Gajanan S/O Balasaheb Bolaji

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2022MFA/101179/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor First Appeal modifie a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award enhancing compensation from Rs.8,61,000/- to Rs.14,97,000/- for the death of the wife, correcting errors in notional income, multiplier, and heads of damage. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The tribunal award modified to Rs.14,97,000/- with 6% interest, to be deposited by the insurer within six weeks.

Mubaraq S/O Gulab Attar Vs Gajanan S/O Balasaheb… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 101179 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101179 OF

¶8

2016 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. MUBARAQ S/O GULAB ATTAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.72, K H B COLONY, SIDDESHWAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

KUMARI MUBASHIRA D/O MUBARAQ ATTAR AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶12

KUMAR MOHAMMED S/O MUBARAQ ATTAR AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, (SINCE PETITIONER 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY M/G PET.NO.1

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SHRI. GAJANAN S/O BALASAHEB BOLAJI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINES, R/O: NEAR JIJAMATA CIRCLE, DHARWAD ROAD, BELAGAVI,

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 101179 of 2016

¶19

(OWNER OF TANKER NO.MH-10/AQ-6336)

¶20

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. (POLICY NO.270802/31/13/6300001447) VALID FROM 15.10.2013 TO 14.10.2014)

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. S.S.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1141/2014 ON THE FILE THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

¶27

learned counsel for the respondent. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned

¶28

counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

The claimants are the husband and two children

¶30

of the deceased who claim the compensation on account of death of Smt. Shabanam. The claimants in order to

¶31

¶32

MFA No. 101179 of 2016

¶33

substantiate their claim, examined the husband as P.W.1 and also marked the document at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On

¶34

the other hand, respondent examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked the Insurance policy as Ex.R.1.

¶35

The tribunal after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.8,61,000/- with 6% interest. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award the present appeal is filed by the claimants, contending that the compensation awarded is very meager and not awarded just and reasonable compensation and the tribunal has awarded a meager compensation by taking the income of Rs.6,000/- per month as against Rs.7,500/- of notional income. The counsel also would submits that, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and not awarded any compensation under the head of damages to the vehicle and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶36

¶37

MFA No. 101179 of 2016

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submits that, the tribunal has committed an error in taking the multiplier of ‘17’ instead of ‘16’ since the postmortem report discloses the age as 32 years and only based on the evidence of P.W.1 who deposed that, she was aged about 29 years, erroneously taken the multiplier of 17 and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶39

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are;

¶40

(i) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation ?

¶41

(ii) What order ?

¶42

Answer to Point No.1 : Having heard the

¶43

respective counsel and also on perusal of the material, this is the accident of the year 2014 and the tribunal committed an error in taking the income of Rs.6,000/instead of Rs.7,500/- as notional income. Admittedly there

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 101179 of 2016

¶46

are three dependents and 1/3^rd has to be deducted and 40% has to be added as future prospectus. If it is added 40% to Rs.7,500/- and deducting 1/3^rd it comes to Rs.7,000/- and taking the multiplier as ‘16’, it comes to Rs.13,44,000/-. There are two children and also a husband and having taken Rs.40,000/- to each, it comes to Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium and also love and affection. The claimants are also entitle for compensation of Rs.33,000/- under the head of loss of estate and also the funeral expenses and in all it comes to Rs.14,97,000/-.

¶47

7. Answer to point No.2 : In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The appeal is allowed in part;

¶50

(ii) The Judgment and award of the tribunal is

¶51

modified awarding an amount of Rs.14,97,000/- with 6% interest, as against Rs.8,61,000/-.

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 101179 of 2016

¶54

(iii) The Insurance company is directed to

¶55

deposit the said amount within six weeks from the

¶56

date of this order.

¶57

(iv) Registry is directed to return the trial

¶58

Court records forthwith, if any.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

SVH

Mubaraq S/O Gulab Attar v. Gajanan S/O Balasaheb Bolaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubaraq S/O Gulab Attar v. Gajanan S/O Balasaheb Bolaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Rudragouda S/O Goudappa Marigoudar Vs the Managing Director

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs Ningappa Lachappa Lamani

The Branch Manager Vs Shri. Rudragouda Goudappa Marigoudar

D K Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Ms.Yogashree H.C. Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddesh P M @ Siddappa Vs the State by Rural Police