Allowed

Mrs.Safina W/O Ilias Shaikh v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2023MFA/100612/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly against a MACT award dismissing a claim due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held the Tribunal erred in denying jurisdiction as evidence proved residence in Belgaum. Compensation on conventional heads was enhanced per Supreme Court rulings. Total compensation fixed at Rs. 18,40,000 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; total compensation of Rs. 18,40,000 with 6% interest granted; amount to be deposited by CSR and distributed as perたる order.

Mrs.Safina W/O Ilias Shaikh Vs the Divisional… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100612 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MRS. SAFINA W/O. ILIAS SHAIKH AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶12

K M SOMASHEKAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH 2023.09.23 12:45:58 +0530

¶13

ADNAN S/O. ILIAS SHAIKH AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶14

KUMARI ALIYA D/O. ILIAS SHAIKH AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI,

¶15

SINCE MINOR R/BY HER NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLHAPUR DIVISION, KOLHAPUR.

¶21

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORATION, WEHATUK BHAVAN, OPP: MUMBAI CENTRE RAILWAY STATION, BICULLA –MUMBAI.

¶22

KUMARI ALNAZ D/O. ILIAS SHAIKH AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. A.S.R.NAMAZI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) (R3 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2515/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II BELAGAVI, RETURNING THE PETITION TO PRESENT BEFORE PROPER COURT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal by the claimants in M.V.C. No.2515/2011 on the file of I Additional District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.06.2015 whereby the aforesaid claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed on the ground of lack/want of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim petition.

¶30

The material on record discloses that the appellants are the wife and children of late Ilias Shaikh, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.10.2010 when the Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.GA-05/B-0141 driven by late Ilias Shaikh was hit by a MSRTC bus bearing registration No.MH-20/B-9060 on account of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid bus resulting in the demise of late Ilias Shaikh. The said claim petition was opposed by the respondents on various grounds including stating that the Tribunal did not have

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶32

territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim petition.

¶33

After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the respondents. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs.22,75,000/-. However, the Tribunal declined to accept the contention of the appellants that they were residing at Belgaum within the territorial jurisdiction of MACT, Belgaum and consequently, proceeded to dismissed the claim petition on the ground of lack/want of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the claimants are before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶34

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Tribunal has failed to consider and appreciate the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of claimant No.1-Safina (P.W.1),

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶36

wife of the deceased Ilias Shaikh as well as the evidence of P.W.3-Umarsab Patvegar, the landlord of the house where the claimants were residing and other material on record which cumulatively establish that the claimants, though originally from Goa, were residing at Belgaum at the time of the accident and at the time of filing the claim petition. Further, the respondent No.1 had not adduced any rebuttal evidence to establish that the appellants were not residing at Belagavi within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the incorrect conclusion that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the petition, and consequently, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and the claim petition deserves to be allowed.

¶37

Insofar as the quantum of compensation

¶38

awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal having found that no document was produced to prove the annual

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶40

income of the deceased at Rs.8,00,000/-, as claimed by the claimants, considering that the deceased was carrying on agricultural activities, horticultural activities and poultry business, has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The Tribunal considering the number of dependants, who were four in numbers, and the age of deceased, who was aged 54 years as on the date of the accident, deducted 1/4^th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, applied the appropriate multiplier ‘11’ and awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,50,000/-. In our opinion, we do not find any ground to reckon the income at an higher rate and as such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is not interfered with.

¶41

As can be seen from the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded higher compensation on the conventional heads i.e., towards ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of expectation of life of the deceased’ and towards ‘funeral

¶42

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶43

expenses. In view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited.

¶44

Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nau Ram & Ors.² , in an accidental death case, under the conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to compensation towards ‘loss of consortium (spousal & consortium)’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. As such, the appellants-claimants in the present appeal are entitled a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’ to claimant No.1, Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No.2 to 4 towards ‘loss of parental consortium’; and Rs.15,000/- each towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’.

¶45

On re-assessment, the claimants are entitled

¶46

total compensation as under:

¶47

1)	Loss of dependency	Rs.	16,50,000/-
2)	Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1	Rs.	40,000/-
3)	Loss of parental consortium to claimants No.2 to 4	Rs.	1,20,000/-

¶48

1 2017 ACJ 2700

¶49

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶52

4)	Loss of estate	Rs.	15,000/-
5)	Towards funeral expenses	Rs.	15,000/-
	Total	Rs.	18,40,000/-

¶53

Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.18,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

¶54

In the result, we pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The appeal is hereby allowed in part.

¶57

ii) The impugned judgment and award, dated 22.06.2015, passed in M.V.C. No.2515/2011 by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is hereby set aside.

¶58

iii) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶59

iv) The respondent-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation shall deposit the aforesaid compensation along with interest within a period

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10571-DB MFA No.100612 of 2019

¶62

of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

v) On deposit of the amount by the Corporation, the appellant/claimant No.1 shall be entitled to 40% of the amount; claimants Nos.2 to 4 shall be entitled to remaining 60% of the amount in equal proportion. 25% of amount falling to the share of claimants No.1, 2 and 3 shall invested in Fixed Deposit in their in a Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and remaining 75% be released in their favour. The entire amount falling to the share of claimant No.4 shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in her name in a Nationalised Bank till she attains the age of majority.

¶64

Registry to draw the award accordingly.

JUDGE

Sd JUDGE

KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Mrs.Safina W/O Ilias Shaikh v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Safina W/O Ilias Shaikh v. the Divisional Controller

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

Mr.M.P. Goudar Vs the I G-Cum-Chief Security Commissioner/

Smt. Bhavakana S/O Chandrakant Karvekar Vs Sri Reshma W/O Bhavakana Karvekar

Venkatesh S/O Bapu Bhomkar, Vs Rudresh D N S/O Nanjundaraya

Shri. Saradesai Navalgund Sirsangi Trust Vs Smt. Hanifa W/O Imamhussain Attar

Sairam S/O Manjunath Narasinganavar Vs Rajesh S/O Basavaraju

Ningappa S/O Basawaneppa Rachannavar, Vs Ismail S/O Rashid Sait