Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri. Mahadevanayaka on 13 December, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
M.F.A.NO.7097/2011(MV)
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager,
Rural Division,
KSRTC, Bannimantap,
Mysore.
Owner of the bus bearing
No.KA-09 F-4095.
Now through Chief Law Officer,
KSRTC, Central office,
K.H.Road, Bangalore. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri.K.Nagaraj, Adv.,)
AND:
1) Sri.Mahadevanayaka,
s/o Sri.Shambunayaka @
Chikkamotanayaka,
Aged about 40 years,
r/at Halasuru village,
H.D.Kote taluk, Mysore district.
2) Sri.M.Suresh
s/o Sri.late Muttaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
(Driver of KSRTC bus No.KA-09 F-4095)
Badge No.8238
H.D.Kote bus depot,
Mysore district. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.B.C.Nagaraj, Adv. for R1)
-2-
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act
against the judgment and award dated 04.01.2011
passed in MVC No.145/10 (old No.184/09) on the file of
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hunsur, & etc.,
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent-KSRTC in MVC No.145/10 on the file of the MACT, Hunsur, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 04.01.2011 in awarding compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- for the death of Smt.Ningamma, who was claimant's father's sister.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the deceased Ningamma and her son-in-law were waiting for the bus near Halasur gate to proceed towards K.Belathur and at that time, the bus belonging to the appellant herein driven by the 1st respondent before the tribunal, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Ningamma causing grievous injuries to her. Thereafter, she was shifted to the General Hospital, -3- H.D.Kote, where she was in coma and later, she succumbed to the injuries. Hence, claim petition was filed seeking compensation contending that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and that the claimant was dependent on her for his livelihood.
3. In the proceedings before the tribunal, the claimant was examined himself as PW-1 and produced in all 8 documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P8, out of them, Exs.P1 to P7 are the police documents and Ex.P8 is the BPL card which shows that the deceased Ningamma and the claimant were living in the same house. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the offending bus namely the 1st respondent was examined as RW-1.
4. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal proceeded to hold that there exists the relationship of aunt and nephew between the deceased and the claimant and also held that the death of Ningamma has taken place -4- due to rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to KSRTC. In view of the same, the claimant was held to be entitled for compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- under the 'head loss of estate'. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
5. It is contended by the KSRTC that there is no relationship of aunt and nephew between the deceased Ningamma and the claimant and in the light of the evidence produced by the claimant, it is seen that the claimant is living independently without depending upon the income of the deceased. Hence, question of awarding compensation does not arise and he cannot become the L.R. of the deceased Ningamma. It is also contended that the age of the deceased was not 65 years as on the date of the accident in terms of the entry made in Ex.P8 the BPL card, in which, the age of the deceased was 69 years as on the date of the accident. In view of the same, compensation awarded is on the higher side and liable to be set aside.
-5-
6. Per contra, the claimant in this appeal tried to substantiate the judgment and award passed by the tribunal by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Chamansab vs. Parappa and others reported in 2008 ACJ 321 and that of the Apex Court in the matter of Gujarat Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhathbai and another reported in 1987 ACJ 561 and also in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Hari Shankar decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in CDJ 2010 MPHC 693.
7. On going through the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the opinion that though the claimant is nephew of the deceased Ningamma, he is entitled to maintain claim petition against the loss of estate. Since there is no relationship between the deceased and the claimant, the question of awarding compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' does not arise. In that view of the matter, the tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under the head 'loss of estate' and towards 'transportation of dead body and funeral expenses'.
-6-
8. It is noticed that while awarding compensation under the head 'loss of estate', there is serious error committed by the tribunal. Admittedly, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.1,500/- per month. If the said income is taken into consideration it would be Rs.18,000/- p.a. While calculating 'loss of estate' only 1/3rd of the income should be taken into consideration and it would come to Rs.6,000/- p.a. The multiplier i.e., required to be applied in this case is 5, since the age of the deceased was 69 years as on the date of the accident. Thus, the compensation under the head 'loss of estate' would be Rs.30,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 5). The tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- towards 'transportation of dead body and funeral expenses'. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.45,000/- instead of Rs.1,23,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
9. Hence, the appeal filed by the KSRTC is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the tribunal gets reduced from Rs.1,23,000/- to Rs.45,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. -7- In view of the appeal being allowed in part, from out of the amount in deposit, modified award amount with interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit be sent to the tribunal for release in favour of the claimant. Excess amount if any, in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant-KSRTC.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.