Smt. Sushma W/O Ashtavinayak Patil Vs Smt. Malutai W/O Rajaram Patil

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-G, DATED 22/01/2025, M.V.C.NO.2279/2013, ON I.A. DATED 08/11/2024, ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.06.2025, THIS DAY, THIS COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2 -

¶18

WP No. 100626 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife, who is none other than the wife of deceased-Ashtavinayak Patil seeking to set aside the order dated 22.01.2025 passed on I.A. filed on 08.11.2024 in MVC.No.2279/2013 by the VI Additional District Judge, Belagavi.

¶23

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the death of deceased-Ashtavinayak Patil in the road traffic accident occurred on 18.08.2013. The matter was disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by awarding compensation of Rs.1,32,05,000/-, whereby 50% was fastened as contributory negligence on the part of the deceased himself and accordingly, the Tribunal awarded 50% to the claimants. The Insurance Company was ordered to pay Rs.66,02,500/- along with interest at 9% per annum.

¶24

It is the case of petitioner that the Tribunal had apportioned 70% to her and 30% to the respondent, who is none other than the mother of the deceased. In the

¶25

3 -

¶26

WP No. 100626 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

order passed by the Tribunal, Rs.40,00,000/- was apportioned in favour of the petitioner/wife, which was ordered to be deposited in the fixed deposit for a period of 3 years in the State Bank of India, Government Estate Branch, Belagavi. An amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited in favour of the respondent for a period of 3 years in the scheduled Bank of the choice of the respondent. Accordingly, the said amounts were deposited by the Insurance Companies. The remaining amount of Rs.6,02,500/- was ordered to be given to the mother of deceased, the respondent.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner/claimant and Insurance Company preferred the appeal questioning the said order of the Tribunal. After hearing the matter, this Court allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company by reducing the compensation and retained the contributory negligence to 50% as against deceased himself and interest component came to be reduced to 6% p.a. after disposal of the appeal before this Court. It is the contention of petitioner that the

¶30

4 -

¶31

WP No. 100626 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Tribunal concluded that the petitioner has received Rs.22,80,574/- and respondent received Rs.21,77,122/and the total disbursed amount is Rs.44,57,696/-. The balance amount would be Rs.35,48,778/-. No interest was paid to the petitioner out of the compensation amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner preferred an appeal aggrieved by the orders of this Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10648/2024 (Arising out of SLP No.21172/2021). The Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order of this Court and fastened the entire liability against the Insurance Company by directing Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.1,19,08,784/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, the apportionment made by the Tribunal was affirmed.

¶34

Pursuant to disposal of the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company deposited Rs.98,47,067/- along with interest before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for release of the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- along

¶35

5 -

¶36

WP No. 100626 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

with interest of Rs.28,25,300/- totally to Rs.68,25,300/-

¶39

on the ground that the petitioner filed a memo of calculation stating that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.86,82,292/and respondent is entitled to Rs.11,64,775/-. The application so filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Tribunal, hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the application by the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside, when the petitioner is entitled to compensation as stated by her in her application. In view of the enhancement of compensation made before the Hon’ble Apex Court and in

¶41

view of deposit of amount made by the Insurance Company to the extent of apportionment order passed by the Tribunal for herself and so also the respondent would be entitled to a share apportioned as ordered by the Tribunal.

¶42

Per Contra, the learned counsel for respondent justifies the order passed by the Tribunal and contends

¶43

6 -

¶44

WP No. 100626 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

that the entire balance amount was required to be paid to the respondent apart from amount of Rs.40,00,000/ordered to be paid to the petitioner/wife and Rs.20,00,000/- ordered to be paid to the respondent. The remaining amount was ordered to be paid in favour of the respondent/mother. However, other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that instead of deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- as ordered by the Tribunal, same was not deposited in view of reduction of the compensation by this Court in the first appeal proceedings. It is also contended that the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner is incorrect, illegal and un-sustainable. On these grounds, learned counsel for respondent seeks for dismissal of this petition.

¶47

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent.

¶48

There is no dispute to the fact that the Tribunal had allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to an extent of Rs.66,02,500/-. It is also not in dispute that in the first appeal before this Court the amount of

¶49

7 -

¶50

WP No. 100626 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

compensation was reduced to Rs.59,54,392/-. When the matter was taken up before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal of the claimants and set aside the 50% contributory negligence fastening the same as against the Insurance Company and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount in favour of the claimants. There is no dispute of these facts on record.

¶53

The question that would arise for consideration

¶54

by this Court is, what is the amount the petitioner is entitled to and what is the amount requires to be paid to the respondent/mother.

¶55

It would have been simple and easier had the Tribunal decided the claim petition by apportioning on the basis of the percentage of the compensation to the petitioner/wife and respondent/mother instead of doing that, the Tribunal had gone on to award certain portion of the amount to the petitioner and respondent to the extent of Rs.40,00,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent/mother and balance amount to be paid to

¶56

8 -

¶57

WP No. 100626 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

the respondent/mother. This has caused confusion in apportioning the amount of compensation.

¶60

On careful analization of the percentage of compensation awarded to the petitioner as well as to the respondent, it is seen that Rs.40,00,000/- out of Rs.66,02,500/- would be 60.59%, whereas Rs.20,00,000/out of Rs.66,02,500/- would be 30.29%. The Tribunal has gone on to pass an order on balance amount to be paid to the respondent/mother i.e., Rs.6,02,500/-, which would be roughly 9.12%. Therefore, on mathematical calculation for the purpose of apportionment, the petitioner/wife would be entitled to 60.59% of the total compensation along with interest at 6% per annum and respondent would be entitled to 39.41% along with interest at 6% per annum on the deposit so made by the Insurance Company. Whatever the amount of compensation deposited by way of fixed deposit to either the petitioner or respondent and whatever balance amount that requires to be paid or realized by either the petitioner or respondent. The amount earlier paid/deposited earlier and

¶61

9 -

¶62

WP No. 100626 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

withdrawn earlier would add upto the balance amount deposited by the Insurance Company would have to be apportioned to the petitioner as well as respondent according to the percentage. Under the circumstances, I

¶65

pass the following :

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶68

(ii) The impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed

¶69

in MVC.No.2279/2013 on I.A. filed on 08.11.2024 by the Tribunal is hereby set aside.

¶70

(iii) The Tribunal shall apportion the compensation amount in the form of percentage to the petitioner as well as the respondent to the extent of 60.59% and 39.41%, respectively.

¶71