IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT AKA,
CIRCUXT BENCH AT GULBARGA.
DATED THIS THE 22w DAY OF ~ 3
BEFORE}
THE HONBLE MR. JUs'1'1cE; 9LVGtJNJ:Az,%_: " J
M.F.A.N0.30595 Q12' " M
BETWEEN:
BHARAT S{NGH SINCE D'E'CEA1~3ED} A-
BY LRS V '- I i
1.
sMT.sARAsWA’T[ _ VA
w/0 LA’1’I’:3 ‘BH_A RAT_’S_IN.§31~I–_;PAWAR
AGE:
OCC.:.._HOUSEij1_QLI)° _ * ”
2. PRAS’I”‘1AN”iT”VV._» W — .
S/O LATE. B1~iARA1,.j S-1,Nc,1~1 PAWAR
AGE: MAJO’R . ‘
OCC:E3-.US!NESS~, ‘ ‘
– .3′ A’ ….. V4 »
, 3 ‘ s/’Q L.mf_E BHARAT SINGH PAWAR
Bi;}’S!:NI«:s
4. S1}.=1’I’..SUREKHABAI
D/Q 1.ATI«:BHARA’1′ SINGH PAWAR
AGE: MAJOR.
occ: 1»-Iousla How
SMT. SI”‘iAN’1’AI3AI
I) /’ O IJXTIE 17:31-‘is’\RAT SING} ‘1’ PAWAR
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: [;.3USII\EI.<3SS.
ALL R/O CMC H.NO.9w 1 W287′
‘ (J:
Id
NEAR GANDHI GANJ
{3IDAR~»585 403.
API5’EI.,LA_N’I’S
(By Sri: AMEIEJT KUMAR DI%lSI”i!-3ANDl*;._ AI’)\r”‘.4 } D
AND
l . SMT. NIRMALABAI .
w/0 LATE MALLIJKARJUN f3I¥§ADAR PASl”{APDI’2.. “_
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD.
P
KUMAR1 MAHANANDA
D/O LATE MALLIKARJUN EERADAR
AGED:31YEARS ,
occ; HOUSE HOI.D’& TS’1’UDiEN’F°’– O *
3. MASTER SAN–{}MESH”‘»–:” ; «V
S/O I,A’I’E~iVi.2’§J3’LiJP;AR3JI.,li\I Is:RA£),ARVi1>As1’~1APuR
AG1+:D;.2.9’–yE;§;;s ~. j«_ _ .
OCC:
4. KUMAR1 _
D/O Lmfp:v.MA;:,L1.;I1<A.,R4JUN B1RADAR PASHAPUR
A-320: 23V-YEARS '-
V ” }§iU5z42IAm..c}1A1\2:ij’1\§DEsHwAR1
..D/.Q’«1.m§E;vMALL1JKARJUN BERADAR PASHAPUR
Ac-.132); “2 1’~Y,EARS
A =._A1,I,.~I4? SHIVANAGAR SOUTH
£2115′;-3:2.’
‘ . .- RE£Sl3(.)[\El)f§£N”I”S
BASAVARAJ R. MA’I’I:-1, ADV. FOR C/R–} }
THIS MI’-‘A 1S 1311.131) U/S 173 (I) O1’ ‘I’§'”‘!IFl M. V. AC’E’.
I988 PRAYING TO ALI,O\«-V “1’I’-‘HS APPEA.I, ANI3 SET AS11315
THI§J JUDGMENT AND AVVARD DA’I’E*-LI) 17.2.2010 }”ASSE1i)
IN MVC NOJ82/2001 BY TI-€13 LEARNED PRESIIJING
OFFICER. FAST TRACK COURT–1 AND ADDL. MACT. AT
sIDAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM P13’m*ION .-AND
AWARDENG ms COMPENSATION OF Rs.0s_s1.40o/V- ‘%.3v1″i§1»1
INTERES’£’ AT 6% PA. ~
Ti–its A91->I~::AL, COMING ON FOR
‘FIiIE5 I)1X'{. 17¥1E3 (3C)1}I{T’ [)I£I,I\’I3F{I£I) ‘FIiE3 I?()I.Fi()§RJIP¢{}3 4
J U D G M E Thu’ ;,
This appeal is filed by» represe1ft;;ii;–i\r.es of * L’
the Original Owner of the veh-ie}Ve”Lvi.1i”–»questiOp..,s Aiapeal is
filed under Section kl 7_3{ Vehicles
Act.1988.
2. The-w.m5atii;€1′ eifiises-xiii ftlie fsliowing manne1′:~
ftlainlaiits. Petition is fi}ed
under SE3Cfi«’Z)1’1″ 16 ‘ Of ihe Motor Vehicles Act. seeking
‘I1
“V._,_eOnij3e1§s:ati_0n e death of husband of the first
_1*esp(3ndveiit.4’aiid father of the remaining respondeniis.
‘I’he_iielecegisediilOn i.5.10.2000 at about. 11.30 pm. after
V’-.,COl”I1p1″C{‘,iAI’lig his business was retL1r1’1ing to his house On
_his fn()tOr cycle in a norms} speed and when he was
_?1’f_z5ear I\Eew bus siaiici, a M&1f1.i{.1’1i Omni v;z11’1 beziriiig
N0.KA438/i\/1-484 cemie fmni Opposite side in a high
speed and hit the motor Cycle. as a result”. said
Ma11ika.r3’u1’1 r<:tc,eived serious injuries. H<fi:~,_i"wé-2.5
iinmediately shifted to Goverrimeiit. 110spit:a1,__-E3-iciéifj'La1{iCi._._"' .
t'11<:r<3aft.er for better tremmeiii tI(_)_..NI_1_\'/IS ;:ii"Hf}.§i.éi'abaCl.~i.v
Eventually. he succurnbed to the if1~.ihe=§ '11($:s_b-ii:iii.i.:
on 8.11.2000, which ihé accident, he was a1iv,e for the accident had occurred driving of the is filed. The
original tsmtement. of objection
*.’1’1fi’/’..’é1V6(VT’vi:(Li(3I1’t had not occurred
due to driving of Omni vehicle, but
l1()Wc’;:v?.IfA, it .t:1’iefo11;§*- ihe deceased himself.
substance is one of total denial.
f)’i1fihg V..§)Vér1d(-:ncy of the proceedings before the
Tribtmai; the original owner died and his legal
:*t:pf<3.:3céI1t.a1t:ivc:s have Come on record. They 1'1a.ve filed
c1:n..111i".er iiiciiirzatiiig that they are 1101, liable to .<sat:ir:s£y ilw
claim a1ssi1:i1i;.'1g that: it ;gra.11i',c:c:i on the g.{1'()1.::1Ci t'h2.1€.
« z
a"
$5
they have not inherited any property of the original
owner.
4. Learned member of me Triburlal 11a1xr*i:.:«:.g,.§J4′
to the evide1″1ce let. in by the elainlants
that indeed the accident had 0ce;:1l.zrred’Ad1t’:e
negligent driving by the drhre-r__.o1′
grant of Compensation is has
found that the deeeasedfwfads shop and
also had certain».agriergeitttxfttl Tribunal has
taken ineo_me., :z1t’%iL’;’i2.OO/W per month
and h2;{ving’i’Aeg.é3rd:V’§t.e then”size ofwthe famfiy has deducted
25% inwards’ “‘pders'()~ndEjtl. expenses” and “loss of
clependeracy” at. ’75″/o sud thus awarded e0mpensat.ion of
“loss of depexlderlcy”. Since the
treatment for 21 period of 24
the Ti”ibt:na1 has awarded “medical expenses and
,_’ais() atft;*endani’, charges”. Thus 21 total C()r11peI1sation of
A00/– awa.rde.d.
Mr. Ameet K1.z1″nar I)(?sI_’1pemd(r. Ie2m’1ed (‘{)1.£i’3.’.5(31
2-x;3})ez1ring2; for tin: letgal heirs of the cnrigirml <:')w1e2er
submits that the deceased had contributed to the
accident. He further submits that since the
owner is no more, question of legai repreéaentatéw-s___
satisfying the award does not ariseh 9
6. Mr. Basavaraj _ Ma4thA,:”.V_iearrre~_dd’
appearing for the C1aimanta””ia:11pportéfi
and award.
I have ‘V reeorded by the
Tribunal.
“Z. II_1s_oA’t’arVaa3vact4i.oi~1ab1e_– negligence is concerned. I
am of theview finding cannot be faulted”
inas§r1ua:1’i as,’ said finding is based on the documents
rfiade available during the course of triai. Ex~
FIR, Ex~P3 is spot panchanama, Ex–P4
is the “of Motor Vehicle Inspectofs report. Indeed. a
eomperidious reading of these documents would cleariy
Aiihdieate that the Omni vehicie was responsibie for the
miaecidenti. Indeed. suppiernentai records wouid indicate
that the driver of the Omrzi vehicle was also charge
J,
ff
°a(7a1’3r1()t’ be said to be if’i(T€’)I’]’C(.’.i’.. Insofazii’
sheeted. Hence. I am of the View that the said .fi1=iciirig
which
disturbed.
8. inaofar as quantum of é1,4I11(‘?§’1’1iI3’i.
is to be noticed, the t,ribu:’1ai.._has it:-1kc:1:1 t1?..1e”«:ineo.n=ie oi”
the deceased at a mociest Come
on record that the a Wine shop
and had agriéuii/~’§Tal of the Vi€W
that the
be has deducted 25%
toward};-3 “–p’er.so1:ia-iA4’e.xpen’s–es”‘. that is also justifiable
halving regaflrdvvttj .til’ie’ of the family. Indeed. the
decte/a§ed’*3r1:;1s left .b__ehi~r1d claimant. No.1 who is a widow
{our ‘chi1_d’re_n and to maintain. a family of this size,
the would certainly be more. Thus the “loss
[of dcxpe1iiciei’1ey” at 75% also cannot be faulted. The
:[_’}’ril:5ti:1z1.l has taken appropriate multiplier at “.13”.
“””Iae1\;i11g regard to the 2-ige of the dC(I’C£1SE?d._ which also
as m edi cal
(“XpCl’}S€3S for me ;;>er1′()(.i cim’ii’2g__§ \Vi”]i(‘,l’} he was I2′-iici up in
is based on appreciation of evidenc:e_.e_an’fI<.5't;.
i . '(','()1"'1'*'C.f',IVi'iJ.xit';.d. ii i
iff/5/7
5:?"
the hospital before he suecurrlbed to mjuries is
(.’.C)I1CCI’11Cd. that is backed by the certificates _an_d-.._’also
the medical bills. wllich are at EXSWPIQ 2:1I1d_.–§.’_ll3;’ V.
I am of the View that the eiaimaV1′,1rt,.s_ areeiit’:it..i’e:il”for.t.he-e
said amount also. Insofar as t:l1e:’an1::’iuA:’it ééiwéirdedl til-a.glAe;€
various other heads like of (A3.(3V1VSOIftlV’L1flT’!{:.V”$1938 of *
love and affection”, “loss of eestavte”‘–»_.and “trans;5ortat.ion
and funeral expenses” t:ar1r*1ot2*. ‘to be arbitrary.
Indeed. having _p’e.rL1se’dlthejtgdgmeerit; mid award passed
by the Tr§bL€’r1_al¥…..«f’ tjhefviwew that it does not”:
wa_rrarit. iritfer.ferer11’ec%. _ ‘ l ‘ » .V ”
9. °1’n_4slo.far’ _ as ” com;.ent1’or1 regarding the
appeillahlts are r1ot__liable to satisfy the award, indeed the
~1ega.I_ i’epres.er1t_atives would step into the shoes of the
orig’i*r1al t)x?J11e.f= and would Certainly i11h_erit’ the eSt.at.e of
the ldeeeasled. ‘”l’hus I am of the View that the legal
~if’represerlt.at.iVes of the original owner are liable to satisfy
‘ t.lj;c% c:la.im of the respo1’1dem’s. No merit’.
I \X\«
9
Appeai is dismissed. in ViC\V of the disnaisszfi of
the main appe.2-11, Misc_CvI. 151401/IO for stay dogs; not
SL11’Vi\-‘6 for cc)1’1siderat.ic)n.
Regisary to U’E1I1.’f_iI]’1iIj the am<)um in C1(?~}:)_OS_§I'€"..{'E:)..f'{%'3..§;' .
Concerned Tribunai.
3fi3GEp T