Smt Geetha Devi Vs Syed Basheer Ahmed @ Alla Bhakas

SRI SUJI SUDHAKARAN S/O SUDHAKARAN, MAJOR RESIDING AT VILLA NO.4, NEAR VIVEKANANDA ASHRAMA, HIMAGIRI PRASHNTHI LAYOUT, KALLUBALU POST, JIGANI, BENGALURU-560105

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP FOR SRI.B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶33

R-1 & R-3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶34

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4867/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-13, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶35

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶37

and

¶38

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶41

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants

¶42

aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.02.2022

¶43

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8927-DB MFA No. 3744 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short 'the Tribunal' ), Bengaluru, (SCCH-13) in MVC No.4867/2016.

¶46

The deceased Jithin, who was working at BWSSB water tank construction area located at 11th Block, BDA layout. Anjanapura, Bengaluru, was hit by the Crane bearing Registration No.TN-59-AZ-0682. As a result of accident, he sustained grevious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

¶47

The claimants, who are mother and sister of the deceased had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal, however, has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- inasmuch as the accident took place on 24.01.2015. The Tribunal has also granted 40% future prospects of the said income. However, as the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the said amount has been deducted towards his personal and living

¶48

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8927-DB MFA No. 3744 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

expenses. Therefore 'loss of dependency' has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,12,000/- and there are two dependants of the deceased, therefore, loss of consortium for two dependants at the rate of Rs.40,000/each has been assessed at Rs.80,000/-. Loss of estate Rs.20,000/- and transportation charges of Rs.15,000 has been awarded. Thus the total compensation of Rs.16,27,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶51

Learned counsel for the appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. However, looking at the fact that no credible evidence was produced before the Tribunal to suggest that the deceased was drawing an income of Rs.15,000/- per

¶52

month, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month to assess the 'loss of dependency'. Hence, we do not find any ground to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8927-DB MFA No. 3744 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that respondent No.2/Insurance Company has been absolved from payment of the compensation amount on the ground that the driver of the Crane was not authorized to operate the Crane in terms of the driving license issued to him, inasmuch as the unladen weight of Crane was 8,250 kg and that would not come within the Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), for which the driver of the Crane was having the licence.

¶56

The learned counsel for the appellants or the claimants therefore, submits that if the driver of the Crane was not having valid license to operate the Crane, the Tribunal should have directed the Insurance Company i.e., insurer of the Crane to make payment of awarded sum to the claimants by making a deposit before the Tribunal and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶57

The submission is that, to that extent the award needs to be modified and respondent No.2/Insurance

¶58

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8927-DB MFA No. 3744 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Company, be directed to deposit the amount of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal and liberty may given to the Insurance Company to recover the same from respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle, who has remained unrepresented despite service of notice.

¶61

Mr. Pradeep B, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has not seriously disputed the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that in such a case, the Insurance Company. should pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶62

Considering the aforesaid submission, we are of the view that the award to that extent requires modification and therefore, we pass the following :-

¶63

ORDER

¶64

a. The impugned judgment and award dated 03.02.2022 passed in M.V.C.No.4867/2016 is modified insofar as the liability is concerned.

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:8927-DB MFA No. 3744 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

b. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from today.

¶69

c. The said compensation amount deposited by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company may be recovered from respondent No.1/Owner of the offending vehicle, by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

¶70

With the aforesaid modification, we dispose off this appeal.

¶71

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶73

NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Smt Geetha Devi v. Syed Basheer Ahmed @ Alla Bhakas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geetha Devi v. Syed Basheer Ahmed @ Alla Bhakas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner for Vs Smt. Nazhath Jabeen

Zeenath Begum @ Zeenathunnisa Vs Sri Krishnoji Rao

Uday R Devadiga Vs Smt Kamala

Satchmo Holdings Limited Vs Bangalore Baptist Church Trust

Usha Vs M Velu

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Rathna