Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Smt.Puttavenkatamma @ Venkatamma on 13 February, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3884 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1383 OF 2021 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1488 OF 2021 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1515 OF 2021 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4809 OF 2021 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2308 OF 2022 (MV-I)
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 79 OF 2021 IN MFA 1383/2021 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.3884/2022
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C ., SUB URBAN DIVISION
BANNIMANTAPA
MYSURU - 570 015
PRESENTLY BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
K. S .R.T.C CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE
Digitally signed K.H. ROAD
by DOUBLE ROAD
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA SHANTHINAGAR
GUPTA BENGALURU - 560 027
SREENATH
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ... APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.PUTTAVENKATAMMA @
VENKATAMMA
W/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
R/AT KOLLEGOWDANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125
2. SRI SHIVANANJAIAH M
S/O MANCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO 83, MADAPURA VILLAGE
HAMPAPURA HOBLI
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SYED ABDUL SABOOR .,ADVOCATE FOR R-1., NOTICE
SERVED TO R-2)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.424/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.1383/2021
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C., MYSORE RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAPA
PRESENTLY BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K. S .R.T.C CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE
K.H. ROAD
DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O.LATE AGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
2. SHEELAVATHI
D/O LATE NAGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
3. SHYLA
D/O NAGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
4. MARICHIKKAMMA
D/O LATE NAGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
SINCE RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE
MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER/RESPODENT NO.1 AS
NEXT FRIEND
ALL ARE R/AT HEBBALAKUPPE VILLAGE
AND POST, KASABA HOBLI
H.D.KOTE TALUK - 571 114
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUMA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-4.;
R-2 & R-3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY R-1)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.1.2020 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU IN MVC NO.316/2019,
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION.
IN MFA NO.1488 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C ., MYSORE RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAPA
PRESENTLY BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K. S .R.T.C CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE
K.H. ROAD
DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANUPAMA
W/O MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
2. MAHADEV
S/O MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
ANAGATTI VILLAGE
K.G.HALLI POST
H.D.KOTE TALUK
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SUMA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 31.1.2020 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU IN MVC
NO.315/2019, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION.
IN MFA NO.1515 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE RURAL DIVISION,
BANNIMANTAPA
PRESENTLY BY THE MANAGING DRIECTOR,
K. S .R.T.C CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE
K.H. ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.R.VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
S/O.LATE H.R.RANGA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. H.V.VAIBHAVA LAKSHMI
D/O H.R.VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
RAMAMANDIRA BEEDI
HEBBALAKUPPE VILLAGE & POST
H.D.KOTE TALUK - 571 114 .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SUMA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 31.1.2020 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU IN MVC
NO.317/2019, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION.
IN MFA NO.4809/2021
BETWEEN:
1 . H.R.VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
S/O LATE H.R.RANGA SHETTY,
AGED 51 YEARS,
R/AT RAMAMANDIRA BEEDI
HEBBALAKUPPE VILLAGE AND POST,
H.D.KOTE TALUK-571114
2 . H.V.VAIBHAVA LAKSHMI
D/O H.R.VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT RAMAMANDIRA BEEDI
HEBBALAKUPPE VILLAGE & POST,
H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 114
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.SUMA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C., MYSURU RURAL DIVISON,
BANNIMANTAPA
MYSURU - 570 015
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
PASS AN ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED ON 31.01.2020, IN MVC NO.317/2019 ON THE FILE OF
IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU
AND GRANT JUST AND FAIR COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.2308/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT.PUTTAVENKATAMMA @
VENKATAMMA
W/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT KOLLEGOWDANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SYED ABDUL SABOOR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SHIVANANJAIAH M
S/O MANCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R A/T 83,
MADAPURA VILLAGE
HAMPAPURA HOBLI,
H.D. KOTE TQ 571125
MYSURU DISTRICT
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KSRTC
SUB URBAN DIVISION
BANNIMANTAPA
MYSURU 570 015
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 . SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED ON
16.11.2021, IN MVC NO.424/2019 ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU
AND GRANT JUST AND FAIR COMPENSATION.
M.F.A CROB. 79/2021 IN MFA NO.1383/2021:
1. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE NAGANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
2. SHEELAVATHI
D/O LATE NAGANIKA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER AS NEXT FRIEND I.E.,CROSS
OBJECTIOR NO.1
3. SHYLA
D/O LATE NAGANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GURADIAN MOTHER
AS NEXT FRIEND I.E., CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1
4. MARICHIKKAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A HEBBALAKUPPE VILAGE &
POST, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK
... CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SMT.SUMA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C., MYSURU RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAPA
MYSURU - 570 015
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION
FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 AND SECTION 173 OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED ON
31.01.2020, IN MVC NO.316/2019 ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU
AND GRANT JUST AND FAIR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTION ARE COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
JUDGMENT
MFA Nos.1383/2021, 1488/2021, 1515/2021, 4809/2021 and MFA.CROB No.79/2021 in MFA No.1383/2021 are preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) and the claimants questioning the common judgment & award dated 31st January, 2020 passed in MVC Nos.315/2019, 316/2019 and 317/2019.
2. MFA Nos.3884/2022 and 2308/2022 are preferred by the Corporation and the claimants respectively questioning the judgment & award dated 16th November, 2021 passed in MVC No.424/2019.
3. The appeals preferred by the Corporation are on the ground of exorbitant and excessive compensation awarded by the Tribunal and that the liability exclusively fastened against the Corporation, is bad in law in view of the excess passengers carried in the autorickshaw, which contributed to the occurrence of the accident and the negligence ought to have attributed against the autorickshaw to an equal extent. Whereas, appeals preferred by the claimants is on the ground
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. As all these appeals are arising out of the common accident, they are taken up together for disposal.
5. Parties to the appeals shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
6. Brief facts of the case are as under:
6.1 It is unfortunate case of death of two adults and 'one unborn baby in the womb of mother' so also one Smt. Puttavenkatamma sustaining injuries. It is the specific case of the claimants in all the claim petitions that on 17.12.2018 at about 12.40 p.m. pregnant mother of the unborn baby (Smt. Anumpama/claimant No.1 in MVC No.315/2019), Naganaika, Sarvamangala, Puttavenkatamma and others were traveling in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-45-A-0082 from H.D. Kote towards Hebbalukoppa village, during which time, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-09-F-4121 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 endanger human life and safety and dashed against the hind portion of the autorickshaw, due to which Sarvamangala died at the spot and nine months fetus of the claimant No.1 in MVC No.315/2019 and Naganaiaka sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries.
6.2 MVC No.315/2019 was filed by the parents of the unborn baby. At the time of the accident, claimant No.1 was in her nine months pregnancy. The 1st claimant suffered severe injuries and despite the best treatment, the unborn baby could not survive and was declared as dead. The parents of the unborn baby filed the claim petition seeing compensation for the loss of life of the unborn baby, who could not see light of the day because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus.
6.3 MVC No.316/2019 was filed by widow, minor children and mother of the deceased Naganaika, who was a passenger in the autorickshaw which met with the accident on the fateful day. Due to the occurrence of the accident, Naganaika suffered severe injuries and he was shifted to
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 Government Hospital, H.D. Kote for first aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to Suyog hospital, Mysuru, where he was admitted as an in-patient. Despite the best treatment, he could not survive and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants who are the widow, minor children and mother have lost their earning member due to sudden and untimely death of deceased Naganaika and therefore, they filed the claim petition seeking compensation.
6.4 MVC No.317/2019 was filed by husband and daughter for the death of one Smt. Sarvamangala, who was also passenger in the autorickshaw which met with the accident on the fateful day. Due to the occurrence of the accident, Sarvamangala died on the spot and the claimants, who are her legal representatives suffered emotional and mental trauma and they filed the claim petition seeking compensation.
6.5 MVC No.424/2019 was filed by the claimant/Smt. Puttavenkatamma, who was also a passenger in the very same autorickshaw and due to the occurrence of the accident, she suffered grievous injuries all over the body and incurred huge
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 expenses. Hence, she filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the multiple injuries suffered in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver.
6.6 Apart from these claim petitions, cross-objection was filed by the claimants in MFA.CROB No.79/2021 in MFA No.1383/2021, which is arising out of MVC No.316/2019, for enhancement of compensation.
6.7 Pursuant to the institution of each of the claim petitions, upon service of notice, the respondent - Corporation filed the written statement denying the entire claim made by the claimants and taking the plea that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of driver of the bus, but it was due to the overloading of passengers by the driver of the autorickshaw and overtaking the bus was the reason for the occurrence of the accident, which is negligence of driver of the autorickshaw. Therefore, the negligence cannot be attributed against the driver of the bus and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 6.8 On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.
6.9 In order to substantiate the issues and establish their case, the claimants examined themselves as PWs.1 to 3 and one Siddanayaka as PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and the respondent/Corporation examined one Mr. Narasanna as RW.1 and did not produce any documents in MVC Nos.315, 316 and 317/2019.
6.10 In MVC No.424/2019, claimant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and respondent/Corporation examined one Narasanna as RW.1 and got marked two documents as per Ex.R1 and Ex.R1(a).
6.11 Based on the material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in MVC No.315/2019; Rs.14,16,336/- in MVC No.316/2019; Rs.7,00,000/- in MVC No.317/2019 alongwith interest at 6% per annum. In MVC No.424/2019, Tribunal
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 awarded global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest at 6% per annum.
6.12 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas Corporation is before this Court to attribute and shift the negligence equally to the driver of the autorickshaw and also for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. It is the vehement contention of Smt. Suma .K, learned counsel for the claimants in MFA Nos.1383/2021, 1488/2021, 1515/2021, 4809/2021 and MFA.CROB No.79/2021 in MFA No.1383/2021 that the Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation to the claimants. In fact, the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side; the amount deducted towards personal and living expenses is on the higher side; future prospects has not been awarded; the correct multiplier has not been taken for computation of compensation; and the consortium has not been awarded to reasonable extent by the Tribunal. Therefore, over all compensation requires to
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 be enhanced. It is also the contention of learned counsel that in the death cases, the claimants being 3rd parties would have right to claim against any one of the offending vehicles and the claim petitions are maintainable. On these grounds, learned counsel sought to allow the appeals and enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. It is the contention of learned counsel - Syed Abdul Saboor for the claimants in MFA No.3884/2022 and 2308/2022 that the Tribunal awarded meager compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, which requires to be enhanced and infact, the Tribunal awarded global compensation without taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant.
9. Per contra, it is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the Corporation that the Tribunal committed error and there is a miscarriage of justice as against the Corporation and the Tribunal totally ignored the evidence on record and fastened the liability exclusively on the driver of the bus and consequently the Corporation failed to fix any liability on the driver of the autorickshaw, who is also equally responsible for
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel also contends that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the newspaper cuttings produced, which clearly depict that the driver of the autorickshaw overloaded the autorickshaw with excess passengers of 12 in number, which is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and therefore, same was the reason for occurrence of the accident. If the autorickshaw confined itself to the rules and regulations and number of passengers as authorized in the licence and permit, the accident could not have occurred and there would have not been any fatalities in the case. He further contends that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration that initially FIR was lodged by the Police fixing the liability against the autorickshaw as well the KSRTC bus.
10. Therefore, initially autorickshaw was also part of the FIR, the Tribunal ought to have fastened certain amount of liability as against the autorickshaw driver for having overloaded and carrying excess passengers of 12, which is impermissible in the autorickshaw. It is also contended by the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 learned counsel for the Corporation that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that the autorickshaw while trying to overtake the bus, turned turtle and the passengers fell down, leading to the occurrence of the accident, which is not appreciated by the Tribunal in the proper perspective. On these grounds, learned counsel contends that the Tribunal committed a serious error in fixing the liability as against the Corporation and seeks to allow the appeals preferred by the Corporation and consequently set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in the all the claim petitions.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Corporation and learned counsel for the claimants in all these matters.
12. The points that would arise for consideration in these appeals are :
i) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation ?
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
ii) Whether the Corporation has made out any case for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also for fastening liability as against the owner of the autorickshaw ?
13. Heard the learned counsel for claimants and learned counsel for Corporation, perused the impugned judgment and award, it is seen that the claimants have produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P21, out of which, Exs.P1 to P6 are the Police records and Exs.P7 to P21 are the medical records as well as the proof of relationship and age of the claimants. On perusal of the Police records, it is seen that though initially the FIR was registered against the driver of the bus as well as auto rickshaw, but later on, after investigation, charge sheet has been laid only against the driver of the bus.
14. Though it is vehemently contented by the learned counsel for Corporation that the auto rickshaw was over loaded carrying excess passengers (12 in numbers),
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 but nothing is placed on record to show that by carrying excess passengers, the auto rickshaw had contributed to the occurrence of accident or that due to the negligence of the auto rickshaw, the accident occurred. On the contrary, the materials placed before the Court including the Police records showing the spot sketch and IMV report clearly establish the fact that there is a damage to the auto rickshaw from behind and front portion of the bus. Therefore, the tribunal has fixed the negligence as against the driver of the bus. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same as no cogent material is placed before the Court to show that the accident had occurred due to the contributory negligence by the driver of the auto rickshaw.
15. If the contributory negligence has to be attributed against the other person, the onus shifts on him to prove the said fact by producing cogent evidence either
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 oral or documentary. However, the same is not placed sufficient enough to satisfy the Court. The contributory negligence cannot be attributed without placing material on record. The registration of FIR cannot be concluded as the negligence attributed against the driver of the auto rickshaw. However, pursuant to the filing of FIR and later on, after conducting investigation, the Police has laid charge sheet against the driver of the bus. Hence, negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the bus.
MVC No.316/2019
16. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income in MVC No.316/2019, it is stated that age of the deceased Naganaika was 42 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '14', which does not call for interference. The tribunal has taken the income of Rs.7,470/- per month, which is on the lower side. No documentary proof is
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 produced before the tribunal to show the income of the deceased. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.12,500/- for the accident of the year 2018. Accordingly, the income is taken as Rs.12,500/-. The tribunal has rightly taken 25% towards future prospects and deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, as there are four dependents, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.19,68,792/- (Rs.12,500/- + 25% = Rs.15,625/- - 1/4th = Rs.11,719/- x 12 x 14) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.11,76,336/- awarded by the tribunal.
17. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.80,000/- towards loss of parental consortium and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 consortium, in all Rs.2,10,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is on the higher side. However, there are four dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x
4) towards loss of consortium along with 10% escalation towards one block period, which would be Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%).
18. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/-, which do not call for interference. However, as per the aforesaid decision, 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
19. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,77,792/- as against Rs.14,16,336/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 19,68,792-00
Loss of consortium, parental 1,76,000-00
consortium and filial consortium
Loss of estate and funeral expenses 33,000-00
TOTAL 21,77,792-00
MVC No.317/2019
20. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income in MVC No.317/2019, it is stated that age of the deceased Sarvamangala @ Vani was 39 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '15', which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The tribunal taken the income of Rs.4,500/- per month, in view of there being no proof of income. However, the Legal Service Authority chart prescribes the notional income of Rs.12,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2018.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.12,500/-. As the age of the deceased was 39 years on the date of occurrence of accident, 40% will have to be added towards future prospects, which has not been taken by the tribunal. The tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, as there are two dependents, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.21,00,060/- (Rs.12,500/- + 40% = Rs.17,500/- - 1/3rd = Rs.11,667/- x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.5,40,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
21. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium, in all Rs.1,30,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is on the higher side. However, there are two dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2) towards loss of consortium along with 10% escalation towards one block period, which would be Rs.88,000/- (Rs.80,000/- + 10%).
22. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/-, which do not call for interference. However, as per the aforesaid decision, 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).
23. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.22,21,060/- as against Rs.7,00,000/-as mentioned in the table below:
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035
MFA No. 3884 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021
MFA No. 1488 of 2021
MFA No. 1515 of 2021
MFA No. 4809 of 2021
MFA No. 2308 of 2022
MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 21,00,060-00
Loss of consortium 88,000-00
Loss of estate and funeral expenses 33,000-00
TOTAL 22,21,060-00
MVC No.315/2019
24. In MVC No.315/2019, it is the unfortunate case of death of nine months foetus of the claimant namely, Smt.Anupama, aged 19 years, who was nine months pregnant at the time of accident and also inmate in the auto rickshaw.
25. Learned counsel for Corporation vehemently contends that the tribunal has awarded excess compensation for the death of nine (09) months foetus of said Smt.Anupama and he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Others vs. Gainda Lal and Others reported in (2022) 14 Supreme Court Cases 342, so also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.136/2022 and
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 connected matters. In the said cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the unfortunate parents of the deceased foetus, whereas the tribunal, on consideration of the materials placed on record in the present case awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Though vehement contention is put forth by learned counsel for Corporation relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, considering the facts and circumstances that due to the negligence of the driver of the bus or no fault of parents, the foetus could not see the light of the day and this Court or tribunal cannot fix the price tag/amount for the foetus and the love, affection and happiness solace he/she would have given to the family/parents in future. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal and the same is retained. This however, would only act as a solace to the unfortunate
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 parents who lost the unborn child due to the fault of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. MVC No.424/2019
26. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income in MVC No.424/2019, the injured claimant was aged 55 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. Admittedly, no proof of income is produced in this case. Though it is stated by learned counsel for claimant that the claimant was working as a coolie and earning an income of Rs.12,000/- per month to support her family and that she suffered disability due to the occurrence of accident, no single piece of document is placed before the Court to prove her income or the disability, so also, disability certificate is not produced. Therefore, considering all these, the tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and directed to deduct Rs.50,000/-, which is already paid by respondent No.2- Corporation.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
27. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimant in this case, the income would have to be taken at Rs.12,500/- for the accident of the year 2018 for the purpose of assessment of calculation. The claimant has sustained four injuries, out of which, injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple in nature and injury No.3 is grievous in nature. The claimant had spent about Rs.22,767/- towards medical expenses and the same is awarded.
28. In view of this Court taking the income taken at Rs.12,500/- per month and the injuries sustained by the claimant, she would require atleast three months period to recuperate to get back to her normal day to day activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500/- x 3) towards loss of income during laid up period.
29. Towards loss of amenities, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
30. Towards pain and suffering, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- under this head.
31. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,15,267/-, which is rounded off to Rs.1,20,000/- as against the global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the tribunal as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings 30,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period 37,500-00
and rest period
Medical expenses 22,767-00
Loss amenities 25,000-00
TOTAL 1,15,267-00
ROUNDED OFF TO 1,20,000-00
Less: already deposited 50,000-00
TOTAL 70,000-00
32. In view of the Corporation having paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the same would have been deducted from the total compensation and the claimant would be entitled the compensation amount Rs.70,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
33. In view of the above discussion hereinabove, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation:
MVC No.316/2019 - Rs.21,77,792/- as against Rs.14,16,336/- ;
MVC No.317/2019 - Rs.22,21,060/- as against Rs.7,00,000/- ;
MVC No.424/2019- Rs.70,000/-
34. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA.Nos.2308/2022 and 4809/2022, MFA Crob.No.79/2021 (MVC.No.424/2019, 317/2019 and 316/2019) preferred by claimants are allowed-in-part;
ii) MFA.No.1488/2021 (MVC.Nos.315/2019) preferred by Corporation is dismissed;
iii) MFA.Nos.3884/2022, 1383/2022 and 1515/2021 (MVC.Nos.424/2019, 316/2019 and 317/2019) preferred by Corporation are disposed of;
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021
iv) The judgment and award dated 31.01.2020 passed in MVC.Nos.316/2019 and 317/2019 by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Mysuru, are modified;
v) The judgment and award dated 16.11.2021 passed in MVC.No.424/2019 by IV Additional District Judge and MACT, Mysuru, is modified;
vi) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.21,77,792/- as against Rs.14,16,336/- in MFA.Crob.No.79/2021 (MVC No.316/2019);
vii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.22,21,060/- as against Rs.7,00,000/- in MFA No.4809/2022 (MVC No.317/2019);
viii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- in MFA No.2308/2022 (MVC No.424/2019);
ix) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Corporation with
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6035 MFA No. 3884 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 1383 of 2021 MFA No. 1488 of 2021 MFA No. 1515 of 2021 MFA No. 4809 of 2021 MFA No. 2308 of 2022 MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2021 interest at 6% per annum, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
x) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the claimants, upon proper
identification in all the cases;
xi) Amount if any deposited before this Court shall
be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith to facilitate the claimants for withdrawal of the amount, upon proper identification.
In view of disposal off the appeals, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same pale into insignificance.
Sd/-
JUDGE pages 1 to 19 .. GSS 20 to 37 CPN