Partly allowed

Nana S/O Appanna Javeer v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2022MFA/200218/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court partly allowed an appeal by parents seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of their minor child in a road accident. Relying on Supreme Court precedents establishing a calculation method for loss of dependency, the court increased the awarded amount from Rs.1,80,000 to Rs.4,30,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased from Rs.1,80,000 to Rs.4,30,000, to be paid by the respondent corporation within six weeks.

Nana S/O Appanna Javeer Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

MFA No.200218/2015 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NANA S/O APPANNA JAVEER AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE

¶9

ANUBAI W/O NANA JAVEER AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC : H.H WORK

¶10

BOTH R/O : PANGARUN DODDI, TQ & DIST : BIJAPUR-586101.

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI.BABU H METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NEKRTC GULBARGA SUMONS TO BE SERVED UPON THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLEER, NEKRTC BUS DEPOT, ATHANI ROAD, BIJAPUR-585101

¶15

……RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT- 13.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO. 658/2013 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VII BIJAPUR AT BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by learned MACT-VII, Bijapur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC.No.658/2013 dated 13.06.2014. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

¶22

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶24

¶25

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

An unfortunate case of road traffic accident leading to the death of minor child namely Sriyuth Pundalik aged 3 years. That on 09.03.2013 at about 18.30 hours, the deceased Pundalik was standing with his grand-mother by the side of the road near Hanchinal Railway gate in order to go to his native place, unfortunately, he could not reach destination due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1665 and dashed against the deceased Pundalik. Due to the said accident, minor child Pundalik died on the spot. In view of the sudden and untimely death of deceased, the claimants have lost their beloved child aged 3 years. Hence, they filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶27

Respondent filed written statement denying the contents of claim made by the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶28

¶29

On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶30

In order to substantiate the issues and to

¶31

establish their case, claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 who was eye-witness i.e. grand-mother of deceased child and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of respondent, the driver was examined himself as RW.1 and no documents were marked.

¶32

On the basis of material evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement.

¶33

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants that the

¶34

¶35

tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation for the death of minor child. On this ground learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation.

¶36

The learned Counsel for claimant in support of his arguments placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, reported in 2022 SCCOnline SCC 1393, wherein the Hon'ble Apex relying on the judgment in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, reported in AIROnline 2021 SC 1029, has held that in a case where the minor child is involved, the compensation will have to be assessed taking into consideration the age of minor child at Rs.25,000/- per annum and multiplier 15 for the age less than 7 years.

¶37

Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation vehemently contends that the

¶38

¶39

Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is correct and there is no scope of interference. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal preferred by the claimants.

¶40

It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 09.03.2013 at about 18.30 hours and the minor child Pundalik aged 3 years met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC bus and succumbed to the injuries. This aspect has been proved by way of production of Exs.P1 to P6, which are the Police records wherein the driver of the Bus has been charged with criminal offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC by filing FIR, crime details, MV report and charge sheet. There is no dispute that the charge sheet has been laid against driver of Bus for the afore stated offences. There is no challenge made to the laying of charge sheet by the driver of the Bus. It is also not the case of respondent-Corporation that the said initiation of criminal proceedings against the driver of the Bus is fictitious and concocted, so also, no contra material has

¶41

¶42

been placed before the tribunal or before this Court to prove the same as invalid or not being genuine.

¶43

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for appellantsclaimants in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, reported in 2022 SCCOnline SCC 1393, wherein the Hon'ble Apex relying on the judgment in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, reported in AIROnline 2021 SC 1029, has held that in a case where the minor child is involved, the compensation will have to be assessed taking into consideration the age of minor child at Rs.25,000/- per annum and appropriate multiplier would be 15 for the age less than 7 years. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.25,000 x 15) under the head loss of dependency.

¶44

¶45

Further, the claimants would be entitled to

¶46

`55,000/- which requires to be awarded under the conventional head and it is accordingly awarded.

¶47

In all, the claimants are entitled to total

¶48

compensation in a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- as against a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, as detailed in the table below:

¶49

SL. NO.	HEAD	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
01.	LOSS OF DEPENDENCY	3,75,000/-
02.	CONVENTIONAL HEADS	55,000/-
	TOTAL	4,30,000/-

¶50

For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The appeal is partly allowed.

¶53

ii) The judgment and award dated 13.06.2014 in MVC.No.658/2013 passed by learned MACT-VII Bijapur, is modified.

¶54

iii) The claimants are entitled for total compensation in a sum of Rs.4,30,000/-

¶55

¶56

as against a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶57

iv) The compensation shall be paid by the respondent-Corporation from the date of petition till realization. The same shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶58

v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact and same are not disturbed.

¶59

vi) Registry to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

msr

Nana S/O Appanna Javeer v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nana S/O Appanna Javeer v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Sharnappa S/O Shivram Malge and Anr.

Biswajit @ Vishwajit S/O Mahendranath, Vs Bankim S/O Kali Thakur

Shaik Hussain S/O Goramiyya Vs Mr.Sushant Abani Pauli

Shri Guruningappa S/O. Revappa Guddad Vs Sri.Prabhakar S/O. Shivappa Maradi and Anr.

The Manager Vs Sri Rukum Patel S/O Maheboob Patel

Md.Azgar @ Azgar Ahmed S/O Tajuddin Vs Mr.Mohan Kumar S/O Karbasappa Hudagi and Anr.