Mrs Raziabi v. Mrs Prema

NC:(2026:KHC:17633( MFA(No.(7690(of(2013( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(C.M.(POONACHA( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(7690(OF(2013((MV-D)( ( BETWEEN:((

(

1., MRS,RAZIABI, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS,,

W/O,LATE,GHOUSE,SAB,, ,

2., HAMEEDA,BANU,

AGED,ABOUT,37,YEARS,, D/O,LATE,GHOSE,SAB,, ,

3., SYED,UMMER,SAB, AGED,ABOUT,42,YEARS,, S/O,LATE,GHOSE,SAB,,

, ALL,ARE,RESIDING,AT,,Digitally signedtiby BILLESHWARA,GWRAMA,, NIRMALA HUMCHA,HOBLI,, DEVI HOSANAGARA,TALUK,, Location: SHIMOGA,DISTRICT,HIGH0COURT OF , KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS, (BY,SRI.,ABUBACKER,SHAFI,,ADVOCATE), ( AND:( (

1., MRS,PREMA, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,, R/O.,KODURU,VILLAGE,,, HOSANAGARA,TALUK,, SHIMOGA,DISTRICT, NC:(2026:KHC:17633( MFA(No.(7690(of(2013( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( ,

2., SATHISHCHANDRA, S/O,MALLAPPA,, MAJOR,, R/O,P.B.,ROAD,, NEW,OIL,MILL,, DAVANAGERE, OWNER,,OF,THE,TANKER, BEARING,REG.,NO.KA17/5515, ,

3., AMANULLA,KHAN, S/O,H.,HUSSAIN,KHAN,, MAJOR,, R/O.,AHAMED,NAGARA,, NEAR,CHAMARAJAPETE,, VEGETABLE,MARKET,, DAVANAGERE, DRIVER,OF,THE,TANKER, BEARING,REG.,NO.KA17/5515, ,

4., THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,CO.,LTD, 249/142,,SHAMANUR,BUILDING,,, CHAMARAJAPETE,,, DAVANAGERE, POLICYNOO.,571200/02/00540, , …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,A,RAVISHANKAR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R4, ,NOTICE,TO,R1,TO,R3,IS,DISPENSED,WITH,, ,V/O,DTD,27.3.2026), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 19.01.2013, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.240/2003,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,ADDITIONAL,SENIOR,CIVIL, JUDGE,, &, JMFC,, SAGAR,, PARTLY, ALLOWING, THE, CLAIM, PETITION,FOR,COMPENSATION,AND,SEEKING,ENHANCEMENT, OF,COMPENSATION., , , THIS, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, ,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶1The present appeal is filed by the claimants impugning the judgment and award dated 19.01.2013 passed in MVC No.240/20031 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar2. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has awarded a compensation of `2,80,000/- to claimant Nos.1 and 2 and `1,38,000/- to claimant No.4. In the present appeal, the appellants (claimant Nos.1 to 3) seek for setting aside the compensation awarded to claimant No.4 and awarding of the entire compensation in favour of claimant Nos.1 to 3.

¶2The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that claiming compensation for the death of deceased (Sri Syed Ahamed) in a road traffic accident which occurred on 13.07.2003, his mother, sister and brother (claimant Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively) filed a claimant petition (MVC No.240/2003). Subsequently, pursuant to the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal, claimant No.4 (who

1 hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment' 2 hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'

is arrayed as respondent No.1 in the present appeal) was impleaded as the wife the deceased. The Tribunal, vide the impugned judgment has awarded a total compensation of `2,80,000/- in favour of claimant Nos.1 and 2 and `1,38,000/- in favour of claimant No.4.

¶3Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the compensation ought not to have been awarded to respondent No.1 (who was arrayed as claimant No.4) since she was a stranger, the Tribunal, consequent to claimant No.4 coming on record framed an additional issue as to whether claimant No.4 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased at the relevant point of time. While answering issue No.4, the Tribunal has in detail appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and recorded a finding that deceased and claimant No.4 had lived together as husband and wife for several years prior to the death of the deceased. Hence, additional issue No.1 was answered in favour of claimant No.4.

¶4In view of the detailed appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal, there is no ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the Tribunal.

¶5It is also sought to be contended by the claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced. Upon a re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that the assessment of compensation is marginally on the higher side. However, this Court does not deem it expedient to interfere with the quantum of compensation in the present appeal filed by the claimants.

¶6In view of the aforementioned, the above appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18