Dismissed

B v. Balaram v Althaf

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2023MFA/6983/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Vehicles Act first appeal, the High Court of Karnataka condoned an exorbitant delay of 2358 days. The Court upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs. 4,52,000/- to the legal heirs, confirming the liability of the vehicle owner despite the absence of valid insurance at the time of the accident.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, the Tribunal's judgment and award were upheld, and compensation was directed to be paid with interest.

B v Balaram Vs Althaf — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 6983 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6983 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B V BALARAM S/O VENKATARAMANGOWDA, R/AT MANJUNATHA AUTO ELECTRICALS, K.B.CROSS, KIBBANAHALLI POST, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DIST (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG NO KA-06-L-3844)

¶9

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. MALLE GOWDA H P, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

… APPELLANT

¶13

ALTHAF S/O LATE ABDUL LATHIF AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶14

BEEBIJAN S/O ALTHAF, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶15

KULSUM D/O LATE KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, MINOR REP BY HER GRANDMOTHER THE CLAIMANT NO.2,

¶16

RIYAZ S/O ALTHAF,

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 6983 of 2018

¶19

AGED ABOUT 33 YEAR ALL ARE R/AT NEHRU NAGAR, TIPTUR AT PRESENT R/AT HEGGERE VILLAGE, KASABA, TUMKUR TALUK..

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M.B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, (R3 MINOR REP. BY R1) V/O DT.8/11/2022, R2-R4 ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF DECEASED R1)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09/12/2011, PASSED IN MVC NO.1674/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-10, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,52,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant–owner, calling in question the judgment and award dated 09.12.2011, passed in M.V.C.No.1674/2008, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity)

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 6983 of 2018

¶28

questioning the fastening of liability on the owner of the offending vehicle No.KA-06-L-3844.

¶29

Brief facts:

¶30

On 10.07.2008 at about 12.30 p.m., the

¶31

deceased was proceeding towards K.B.Cross in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-S-9744 and when he reached near Hindiskere gate, the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-L 3844, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital.

¶32

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 6983 of 2018

¶35

awarded a compensation of Rs.4,52,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held appellant-respondent No.1 therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶36

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

¶37

The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant who is the owner of the offending vehicle No.KA06-L-3844, on the ground that as on the date of the accident, there was no insurance coverage. The appellant has initially taken insurance which was valid from 04.03.1999 to 03.03.2000. The accident was caused on 10.07.2000, therefore as on the date of the accident, there was no insurance policy. Hence, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 6983 of 2018

¶40

There is a delay of 2358 days in preferring the present appeal. The appeal can be dismissed on the ground of exorbitant delay in filing the appeal, but the Court intends to consider the case on merits. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in the affidavit, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned and, the appeal is taken up for consideration on merits.

¶41

REGARDING QUANTUM :

¶42

The Tribunal has held the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,400/- per month and by deducting 1/3^rd towards personal income as the claimants are father, mother, daughter and brother and by applying multiplier ‘18’, granted compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. The amount of compensation awarded is found to be on lesser side, and there is no addition of loss of future prospects in life and notional

¶43

income taken is on lesser side, but the claimants have not preferred any appeal in this regard. Perhaps they would

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 6983 of 2018

¶46

have been satisfied with the quantum of compensation. Likewise, the award under the head loss of love and affection, transportation and funeral expenses even though is found to be on lesser side, but the claimants have not preferred appeal. Therefore, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be just and proper and there are no ground made out to reduce the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.

¶47

REGARDING LIABILITY:

¶48

Furthermore, so far as the liability is concerned,

¶49

as per Exhibits-R2 and R3, Insurance Policy, the same is valid from 04.03.1999 to 03.03.2000. The accident was caused on 10.07.2000. The appellant has not produce any evidence to prove that as on the date of the accident, there was valid insurance coverage. Therefore, the liability fastened on the appellant–owner to pay the compensation

¶50

¶51

MFA No. 6983 of 2018

¶52

is found to be correct and proper. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits is hence liable to be dismissed.

¶53

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. The appeal is Dismissed .

¶56

ii. The impugned judgment and award 09.12.2011, passed in M.V.C.No.1674/2008, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru is upheld.

¶57

iii. The appellant – owner of the offending vehicle No.KA-06-L-3844 shall pay the compensation as determined by the Tribunal to the claimant, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization

¶58

iv. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited herein shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶59

¶60

MFA No. 6983 of 2018

¶61

v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶62

vi. No order as to costs.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

JJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

B v. Balaram v Althaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B v. Balaram v Althaf

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

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Prakash

Nagaraj Vs Smt Manjula

Karthikeya K Vs Karnataka State Road Transport

Sri.K.Nagarajachari Vs M/S Fac Sri Ram Transport Finance

Sri Sachidananda Acharya Vs Sri Subhas

Sri M. Basavaraju Vs the Managing Director