THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. NO.74/2015 (MV) BETWEEN 1. JAHEDULLA KHAN P., S/O LATE P. JAFFAR KHAN, NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. NOORULLA KHAN P., S/O LATE P. JAFFAR KHAN, NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. JABERULLA KHAN P., S/O LATE P. JAFFAR KHAN, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 4. SABIRULLA KHAN P., S/O LATE P. JAFFAR KHAN, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 5. FAHAMEDA BEGUM P., S/O LATE P. JAFFAR KHAN, NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.1/1079, DARGAPETA, PENUKONDA (RURAL) MANDAL, ANANTHPURA DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH - 515 110.
...APPELLANTS (BY SMT. KAMALA D. K., ADV. [ABSENT]) AND 1. CHAND BASHA S., S/O ABDUL RASHID S., NO.2/144, DARGAPETA, PENUKONDA, ANANTHPURA - 515 211.
2. THE NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44, 2ND FLOOR, SHUBARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHAMATHULLA SHERIFF, ADV. FOR R-1.
SRI. A. K. BHAT, ADV. FOR R-2.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.8.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6901/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER - MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal is listed for today to hear on admission. When the matter was called out for the second time in the afternoon session, learned counsel for the appellants is not present. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company is present.
2. Perused the records. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
3. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- because of the death of deceased P. Amzadulla Khan @ P. Amjad Khan, who is the brother of the claimants, in a road traffic accident, by awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% pa. from the date of petition till realization of same payable by the 1st respondent owner of lorry and dismissing the petition as against the 2nd respondent Insurance.
4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.08.2014 in MVC No. 6901/2011 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-5), Bengaluru, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. The brief facts of the case that emanate from the case of the claimant that, on 21.10.2011 at about 6.00 a.m. the deceased P. Amzadulla Khan @ P.Amzad Khan was proceeding in a lorry bearing No. AP.02/W/2956 by sitting in the cabin as he was a cleaner of the lorry and when the said lorry reached Gottigere Main Road, due to over speed and reckless driving of the driver, the deceased fell from the vehicle and the vehicle ran over him resulting in serious injuries, due to which he succumbed to injuries on the spot. The learned Counsel the petitioners/claimants assent that, the claimants being the legal heirs of the said deceased P. Amzadulla Khan have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of said Amzadulla Khan, seeking enhancement of amount awarded by the tribunal.
6. Claim is for compensation because of the death of P. Amzadulla Khan @ Amzad Khan, who is the brother of claimants, on 21.10.2011 at 6.oo am. when he was proceeding in a lorry bearing No. AP 02/W/2956 for which he was a cleaner.
7. On reaching Gottagere Main Road due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver, the P. Amzadulla Khan @ Amzad Khan fell down and the vehicle ran over his body, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and he succumbed on the spot.
8. The petitioners claim that they were the dependents of their deceased brother and the tribunal was wrong in not allowing their claim except to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- together with the interest at 6% p.a. till the date of realization to be payable by the 1st respondent- owner and dismissing the claim against 2nd respondent. It is seen that they also claim that, in addition to being dependents, they are also the legal heirs of their brother- deceased P. Amzad @ Khan. The deceased was said to have been earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It is also stated that a Criminal case was registered by the Jurisdictional police against the driver of the said vehicle for rash and negligent driving and causing of death of the deceased.
9. It is needless to repeat that when it matters for maintenance or settling compensation the ‘X’ factor is the claimants shall be the dependants. In so far as 2nd respondent is concerned, he asserts that the P.
Amzadulla Khan was working under him as a cleaner- cum-driver on the salary of Rs.3,000/- p.m.
10. The respondent No.2 opposed the claim asserting that, the petitioners are not at all entitled for compensation under the M.V. Act of 1988, as their claim fall under the purview of Employees’ Compensation Act 1923. The liability is being fastened on the 2nd respondent-Insurance company by the Tribunal, it was opposed basically on the ground that the Driver had no valid driving license on the date of the accident.
11. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that, the claimants do not fulfill any requirements of relevant provisions of MV Act for claiming compensation, as such the petitioners are not dependent on their brother’s earning during latter’s life time.
12. The respondent No.1 has asserted that, the deceased was no doubt his employee, but his salary was Rs.3,000/- per month.
13. The important points that emerge are-
i) Accidental death of a male is governed by Muslim Personal Law in the matter of succession when estate consisting of move in the petition.
ii) Petition for claim being prosecuted by four brothers and one sister of the deceased, who are all elder to him in age and all are married and living separately having their own independent source of income.
iii) The respondent-Insurance Company has and contended that the victim was never a pillion rider at the relevant point.
14. In the circumstances, negligence, accident, injuries and the victim succumbing to injuries are the impacted factors.
15. The Petitioners seeking compensation in this case fail in meeting all the requirements. No infirmity, non- application of mind or material error are seen in the Judgment and award passed by the tribunal calling for interference.
Thus the appeal is devoid of merit. Hence Rejected. No Costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*