Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt Anuradha Ramathirtha on 6 May, 2022
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
M.F.A. No.8118 OF 2015 (MV-D)
C/W
M.F.A.No.5626 OF 2018 (MV-D)
MFA No.8118/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
... APPELLANT
[BY SHRI: D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE]
AND :
1. SMT ANURADHA RAMATHIRTHA
W/O RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. TEENA R T
D/O RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
2
3. ABHISHEK R
S/O RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
4. SMT.NARASAMMA
W/O TAMMANNA B T
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.181
1ST FLOOR, "SRIRAMA NILAYA"
OPP APMC YARD
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 096.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SHRI: K SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4(VC)]
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER-MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUES,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.49,86,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION.
MFA No.5626/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT ANURADHA RAMATHIRTHA
W/O LATE RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. TEENA R T
D/O LATE RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
3. ABHISHEK R
S/O LATE RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.181
1ST FLOOR, "SRIRAMA NILAYA"
OPP APMC YARD
3
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 096.
... APPELLANTS
[BY SHRI: K SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE (VC)]
AND :
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC
DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
... RESPONDENT
[BY SHRI: D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE]
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05.04.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, M G UMA J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
MFA No.8118 of 2015 is filed by Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short 'BMTC'), challenging the judgment and award dated 22.06.2015 passed in MVC No.58 of 2013 on the file of learned XIII Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, allowing the claim petition by the claimants and awarding 4 compensation of Rs.49,86,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. for the death of deceased Ramathirtha.
2. MFA No.5626 of 2018 is filed belatedly after 1008 days by the claimants aggrieved by the above said judgment and award seeking enhancement of compensation awarded.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
4. Heard Shri D Vijayakumar, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri K Shantharaj, learned advocate for the respondents and vice versa.
5. Brief facts of the case are that, the deceased Ramathirtha was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-HF-4476 on 26.08.2012 at 12.30 p.m. on Peenya Police Station Road, along with his son Abhishek. The BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-FA-1834 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. The rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was 5 shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, but he succumbed to the fatal injuries. The pillion rider lodged the first information against the driver of the offending bus. The petitioners being the wife, daughter, son and mother of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of the deceased.
6. The respondent-BMTC being the owner of the offending bus contested the petition contending that the bus was never involved in the accident. It was a self fall which resulted in the death of motor cyclist. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. The claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 21 in support of their claim. The respondent examined RWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.R1 to 9 in support of its contention. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.49,86,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The owner of the bus has preferred the appeal challenging the impugned 6 judgment and award, whereas, the claimants have also filed their appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Shri D Vijayakumar, learned advocate for BMTC contended that the bus in question was not involved in the accident. The deceased fell down from the motor cycle as there was gravels on the road. The BMTC bus has been falsely implicated only to claim compensation. He further submitted that petitioner No.3 said to be the pillion rider was not examined before the Court to prove the factum of accident. PW3 examined as eye witness has not supported the contention of the claimants. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal could not have allowed the petition. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
9. Shri K Shantharaj, learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the police records which are marked before the Tribunal disclose that there was a road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by RW1. The evidence of RWs.1 to 3 is self serving statements which are not supported by any materials. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation. However, the 7 Tribunal has not assessed the just compensation. The Tribunal erred in adopting split multiplier. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R Valli and Others Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,1 and prayed for awarding just compensation.
10. We have carefully considered the contentions urged by learned advocates on both sides.
11. It is the contention of claimants that the road traffic accident has occurred on 26.08.2012 at 12.30 p.m. Claimant No.3 was said to be the pillion rider along with his father. He lodged the first information on the same day at 14.30 hours as per Ex.P1. There is prompt lodging of first information within two hours of the accident. The informant has specifically stated about the registration number of the offending bus and the FIR was registered against the driver of the said bus. Ex.P3 is the spot sketch and Ex.P4 is the spot mahazar which disclose that the bus was coming from the opposite direction. The width of the road at the scene of 1 2022 SCC Online SC 170 8 occurrence was 30 feet and the accident has occurred almost on the right edge of the road. As per Ex.P5 - the motor vehicle accident report, right side crash card of the motor cycle had scratches. Ex.P6 - the inquest mahazar specifically refers to 6 external injuries sustained by the deceased. One of the injuries is fracture of right hand and it is specifically mentioned that tyre of the vehicle had ran over the shoulder. Similar injuries have been noted in Ex.P7 - the postmortem report.
12. PW3 is one of the eye witness cited in Ex.P2 - the charge sheet, which supports the contention of the claimants. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of this witness during cross examination will not falsify the contention taken by the claimants. On close scrutiny of all these materials on record, we are satisfied that there was a road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus by RW1 which resulted in the death of rider of the motor cycle. Therefore, the defence taken by the owner of the offending bus cannot be accepted.
9
13. The deceased Ramathirtha was aged 52 years at the time of his death. He was working as Deputy Manager in State Bank of Mysore. This fact is not in serious dispute. PW2 has spoken about the pay slip - Ex.P18 for the month of July 2012. As per this document, the deceased had drawn the gross salary of Rs.51,390/-. Considering the age of the deceased at 52 years, the Tribunal adopted the split multiplier i.e., 8 + 3 = 11. The Supreme Court in R.Valli (supra) specifically held in para 11 as under:
"11. Thus, we find that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court in Pranay Sethi."
Thus, adopting split multiplier in determining compensation is no longer justified.
10
14. Since the deceased was having permanent job and was aged 52 years at the time of his death, future prospects at 15% is to be taken into consideration and the appropriate multiplier would be 11.
15. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency is worked out as follows:
The gross monthly income of the deceased is Rs.51,390/-. Less income tax and professional tax (Rs.51,390/- - Rs.2,820 - Rs.200/- = Rs.48,370/-. 15% towards future prospects is to be added (Rs.48,370 X 15% = Rs.7,255/-). Hence, total monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.55,625/-. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, his monthly income could be assessed at Rs.41,719/- (Rs.55,625 x ¼ = Rs.13,906/- (Rs.55,625 - Rs.13,906). By applying 11 as multiplier, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.55,06,908/- (Rs.41,719 x 12 x
11).11
16. The claimants are also entitled for compensation towards loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-, towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- and towards loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4).
17. The compensation re-computed is as follows:
Sl Description Amount Amount
No awarded by awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
a. Loss of dependency Rs.47,55,980/-
(including future
Rs.55,06,908/-
prospects)
b. Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-
Rs.1,60,000/-
(40,000 x 4)
c. Loss of love and Rs.60,000/-
affection ---
c. Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/-
d. Loss of funeral Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.49,85,980/- Rs.56,96,908/-
rounded off to
Rs.49,86,000/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs.7,10,908/-
18. This Court consistently is awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the motor vehicle accident claims. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the same. 12
19. For the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying I.A No.1/2018, the delay of 1008 days in filing the appeal is condoned and application is allowed, subject to denial of interest for the said period.
20. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) MFA No.8118 of 2015 is dismissed.
(ii) MFA No.5626 of 2018 is allowed in part by
holding that claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.56,96,908/-, as against
Rs.49,86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal,
with interest at 6% p.a., from the
date of filing claim petition till the date
of deposit;
(iii) Insurer shall pay the entire compensation amount of Rs.56,96,908/-, with interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount already paid/deposited, if any, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Claimants shall not be entitled for interest for 1008 days 13 as per order of even date. Disbursement shall be made as directed by the Tribunal.
Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-