Karnataka High Court
Sri M Thejakumara vs The Divisional Manager on 26 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB
MFA No.184/2023
C/W MFA No.2435/2023
MFA No.2593/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.184/2023 (D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2435/2023 (D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2593/2023 (D)
MFA NO. 184/2023
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NO.34/3, MMK COMPLEX,
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P J EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 002
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
SRI.T.NAGALINGACHARI ...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI.B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
signed by A K
CHANDRIKA
AND:
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka 1 . SRI. M. THEJAKUMARA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
S/O LATE H. MANJAPPA,
RESIDENT: C/O H PRAHLAD,
YELLAMMA NAGARA,
3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
DAVANAGERE - 5770 04
2 . SRI RAGHUNATH SINGH
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O MR. BUDH SINGH PEELWA,
PHALODI, JODHPUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB
MFA No.184/2023
C/W MFA No.2435/2023
MFA No.2593/2023
RAJASTHAN - 342 001.
(R.C. OWNER OF LORRY NO.RJ-19/1G.4087)
3 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
(R.C. OWNER OF BUS NO.KA-17/F-1672).
4 . SMT M SUREKHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O SRI RAMAKRISHNA,
RESIDING AT I CROSS, NEHRU NAGARA,
KERE ANGALA, MILLATH SCHOOL,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
5 . SMT M REKHA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
W/O SRI MARUTHI,
R/AT 60 FEET ROAD, BEHIND: ITI COLLEGE,
NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE,
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE - 577 004. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKHAR K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5;
SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R3; R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.
520/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.38,50,743/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
M.F.A. NO.2435/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI M THEJAKUMARA
S/O LATE H MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O NITUVALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 004
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB
MFA No.184/2023
C/W MFA No.2435/2023
MFA No.2593/2023
PRESENTLY R/AT C/O H PRAHLAD,
YELLAMMA NAGARA, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
M M EXTENSION,
NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVANA,
PJ EXTENSION, AVK COLLEGE ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
REP. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
2 . SRI RAGHUNATH SINGH
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O MR BUDH SINGH PEELWA,
PHALODI, JODHPUR
RAJASTHAN - 342 001
(R.C. OWNER OF LORRY
NO.RJ-19/1G.4087)
3 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C., DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANGERE - 577 002
(R.C. OWNER OF BUS NO. KA-17/F-1672)
4 . SMT M SUREKHA
W/O SRI RAMAKRISHNA
AGED 32 YEARS,
R/O 1ST CROSS, NEHRU NAGARA,
KERE ANGALA, MILLATH SCHOOL
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
5 . SMT M REKHA, W/O SRI MARUTHI,
AGED 29 YEARS,
60 FEET ROAD,
BEHIND: ITI COLLEGE,
NEAR: BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
NITUVALLI, DAVANGERE - 577 004 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB
MFA No.184/2023
C/W MFA No.2435/2023
MFA No.2593/2023
SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5;
SRI.D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:01.08.2024)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DT.21.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.520/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
M.F.A. NO.2593/2023
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
K.S.R.T.C,
DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE -577002,
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M THEJAKUMARA
S/O LATE H MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NITUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577004.
PRESENTLY R/AT
C/O H PRAHLAD, YELLAMMA NAGAR,
3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004
2. SRI RAGHUNATH SINGH (MAJOR)
S/O BUDH SINGH,
PEELWA, PHALODI, JODHPUR,
RAJASTAN - 342 001
(R.C. OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING
NO.RJ-19-1G-4087) (EXPARTE)
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB
MFA No.184/2023
C/W MFA No.2435/2023
MFA No.2593/2023
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
M M EXTENSION, NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVANA,
PJ EXTENSION, AVK COLLEGE ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
4. SMT. M SUREKHA
W/O RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 1ST CROSS, NEHARU NAGAR,
KERE ANGALA, MILLATH SCHOOL,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
5. SMT M REKHA
W/O MARUTHI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT 60 FEET ROAD, BEHIND ITI COLLEGE,
NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE,
NITUVALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 004 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKHAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DTD:01.08.2024)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.520/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.
38,50,743/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
29.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the award in M.V.C.No.520/2018 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davanagere, the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 above appeals are filed. The particulars of parties to appeal as per the table below:
Sl. M.F.A.No. Appellant
No.
1 184/2023 Insurer of lorry
2 2435/2023 Claimant
3 2593/2023 Owner of Bus
2. Appellant in M.F.A.No.2435/2023 was the claimant, the appellant in M.F.A.No.184/2023 was the Insurer of the offending lorry and the appellant in M.F.A.No.2593/2023 was the owner of the bus which was driven by the deceased victim. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth as per their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. Claimant is the son, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are married daughters of deceased H.Manjappa. H.Manjappa was working as driver in KSRTC, Davanagere Depot under respondent No.3. On 06.12.2016 Manjappa and conductor Guruswamy V.Sthavaramath were deployed in bus bearing Registration No.KA-17-F-1672, Route No.9/10 to operate between Davanagere-Vijayapura-Solapur. When the bus was proceeding at 3.00 a.m. near Patil Petrol Bunk within the limits of Managuli village of Basavana Bagewadi Taluk, the said bus -7- NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 hit the hindside of stationary lorry bearing Registration No.RJ- 19-1G-4087. In the accident, H.Manjappa-driver, conductor by name Guruswamy V.Sthavaramath and another passenger by name Madakari Nayaka died instantaneously. Some other passengers suffered injuries.
4. Regarding the accident on the basis of complaint of one Thippeswamy as per Ex.P2, FIR as per Ex.P1 was registered in Crime No.216/2016 against the drivers of the bus and lorry both by Managuli police. In the complaint, it was alleged that driver of the lorry had parked the same in middle of the road without parking indicator lights, unnoticing the same, bus driver hit the lorry leading to the accident. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the lorry as well as bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. In the charge sheet it was alleged that driver of the lorry had parked the same in middle of the road negligently without putting the parking lights, thereby committed the offence under Section 283 of IPC. Rashness and negligence was attributed to H.Manjappa-the driver of the bus also.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023
5. Claimant filed M.V.C.No.520/2018 before the Tribunal contending that accident and consequential death of H.Manjappa occurred solely due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was further contended that at the time of accident, he was minor and dependant on the income of H.Manjappa who was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from his employment as driver. He claimed compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- from the respondents.
6. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos.1 and 2 imputing negligence against the driver of the vehicles owned/insured by each other, denying the age, income, occupation of the deceased and their liability to pay the compensation. The Tribunal based on such pleadings, framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the petitioner proves that the deceased H.Manjappa died in a road accident on 06.12.2016 at around 3.00 am, near Patil Petrol Bunk at Managuli, Basavanabagevadi taluk, Vijayapura District, on account of rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Reg. No. RJ.19/1G.4087 by its driver?
(ii) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased H.Manjappa and the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation?
(iii) Whether the respondent No.3 proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
(v) What order or award?
7. In support of the case of the claimant, he was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, its Officer was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.
8. The Tribunal on hearing both side, by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of drivers of the bus and lorry both. The Tribunal apportioned negligence at the rate of 65% and 35% to the driver of the lorry and bus respectively.
9. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 52 years, income at Rs.34,337/-, deducted Rs.200/- per month towards professional tax. Thus considered his annual income at
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 Rs.4,09,644/. The Tribunal added 15% of the income towards future prospects, deducted Rs.11000/- towards income tax, deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, applied 11 multiplier, awarded compensation of Rs.37,95,742.50/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.38,50,743/- with interest at 9% per annum on various heads as per the table below:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in
Rs.
1 Loss of dependency 37,95,743/-
2 Loss of love & Affection 15,000/-
3 Transportation of dead 25,000/-
body and final rites and
cremation
4 Loss of estate 15,000/-
TOTAL 38,50,743/-
10. M.F.A.No.184/2023 and M.F.A.No.2593/2023 are filed by the Insurer and KSRTC challenging the findings of the Tribunal on contributory negligence as well as quantum. M.F.A.No.2435/2023 is filed by the claimant questioning adequacy of compensation.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023
11. Heard both side at length. On hearing both side and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for determination of the Court are:
i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that both the driver of lorry and the deceased himself/the driver of the bus were guilty of contributory negligence is sustainable ?
ii) Whether the compensation awarded is just one ?
ANALYSIS Reg.Negligence
12. There is no dispute that on 06.12.2016 at 3.00 a.m. Manjappa was driver of KSRTC bus No.KA 17/F1672 and that hit lorry No.RJ 19/1G 4087 which was parked on NH-50 near Patil Petrol Bunk within the limits of Managuli village. It is also not disputed that in that accident that Manjappa-the driver of the bus, Guruswamy Stavaramath-conductor of the bus and another passenger by name Madakarinayaka died at the spot and some other passengers were injured. In the present case, to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, eye witness was not examined. The Tribunal relying on the charge sheets Ex.P3 and P4 which were filed
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 both against the driver of the bus and the lorry attributed the negligence at the ratio of 35% and 65% respectively.
13. The legal representatives of Guruswamy Stavarmath another victim filed MVC No.352/2017 before the very same Tribunal. The very Tribunal by the award dated 01.08.2018 fastened the negligence only to the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation. Against the said judgment, both the Insurer of the lorry and the claimants preferred MFA No.9315/2018 C/w MFA No.635/2019 before this Court. In those appeals taking note of the fact that, in that case, complainant-cum-injured eye witness was examined as PW.2 and on detailed analysis of the evidence this Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. In that case also Sri B.C.Seetharamarao, learned counsel who represents the Insurer of the lorry himself had appeared. It is submitted that the said judgment has attained finality. In the present case also, the driver of the lorry is not examined. In view of the finding of this Court in MFA No.9315/2018 c/w 635/2019 holding the driver of the lorry alone responsible for the accident due to his negligence, in this case there is no difficulty in
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 concluding that the accident occurred solely due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry No.RF-19/G-4087.
Regarding Quantum
14. There is no dispute that at the time of the incident the claimant was aged hardly 16 years and his mother had predeceased his father Manjappa. Claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the married daughters of Manjappa. It is also not disputed that Manjappa was survived by only the claimant and respondent Nos.4 and 5. Subsequent to the claimant attaining majority the petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-.
15. Primary contention of Sri B.C.Seetharamarao, learned counsel is that as admitted by the claimant himself in his cross examination after the death of Manjappa, KSRTC has given employment to the claimant on compassionate ground, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation on the head of loss of dependency. When the claimant was examined before the Court as PW.1 he was aged 22 years. On the requisition of this Court the claimant produced his appointment letter dated 17.07.2021 issued by KSRTC, Davanagere division. The said letter shows that the claimant
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 was appointed to the post of house keeping/cleaning on probation of 2 years in the payscale of 11322-15010. Thus the said appointment was given close to five years after the death of the father. Therefore, for about 5 years he had to depend on somebody.
16. It was also contended that the claimant received terminal benefits of his father. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra and ors vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd and another1 has held that the claimants receiving the service benefits of the deceased like pensionary benefits, compassionate ground appointment arise out of the statutory rules and the contractual relationship of the deceased and the employer as employer - employee, they cannot be considered in assessing the compensation in the motor accident claim. In the judgment in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Dyamavva2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of death arising out of motor accident claimants have the right to choose either to proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. They cannot be compelled to claim under Workmen's Compensation alone. 1 (2019)17 SCC 465 2 (2013)9 SCC 406
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023
17. The dependency has to be seen as on the date of the accident. The dependants of the deceased getting some employment or taking any other work for their livelihood does not take away their position of being dependants of the deceased as on the date of the accident. This view of ours is further supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. RekhaBen and ors3 and Vimal Kanvar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others4 wherein it was held that if the claimants are offered compassionate appointment that is not equal to income of the deceased as they were receiving from such employment. It was held that loss of income in such cases cannot be said to be set off for that sum and that cannot be deducted from the quantum of compensation. It was also held that since tortfeaser has not offered such compassionate appointment, amount earned by claimant by his labour or by offering his services whether by reason of compassionate appointment or otherwise is not liable to be deducted from the compensation entitled to be received from a tortfeaser. Therefore, the contention that the claimant is earning through the 3 (2017)13 SCC 547 4 (2013)7 SCC 476
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 compassionate ground appointment or he has received the terminal benefits of the deceased, thus, there is no loss of income, deserves no merit. But for the untimely death of his father the claimant would have pursued a better career. Ex.P19 shows that the claimant took up his X Standard examination in March-April 2018 i.e., at the age of 18 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compassionate ground employment reduced his loss of dependency.
18. Even in the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Birender and ors5 relied on by learned counsel Sri B.C.Seetharamarao Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation to the major and married children on the ground that the deceased was in Government employment whereas children were agricultural labourers on contract basis and they can still be considered as dependants of the deceased. Whereas in the present case the claimant was minor as on the date of the accident and whatever employment was offered to him, that was after five years of the accident. Hence the said judgment also does not serve the arguments of Sri B.C.Seetharamarao.
5 (2020)11 SCC 356
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023
19. As per Ex.P13 and 14 Manjappa was born on 02.06.1964. Therefore as on the date of the accident he was aged 52 years. Ex.P12 salary certificate shows that his gross salary was Rs.34,336.76 and net salary was Rs.25,346/-. Out of the gross salary, Rs.6346.25 were paid as overtime (double) wages, washing allowance and Basic DA. The said amount were not the regular income. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken only the following heads of income in the salary.
Basic Rs.18,100/-
DA 7285/-
HRA 1810/-
Total 27,195/-
20. Out of that Rs.200/- has to be deducted towards professional tax i.e., (27195-200=26995) rounded off to Rs.27,000/-. Therefore, his annual income comes to (27,000X12)= Rs.3,24,000/-.
21. As observed by the Tribunal during the relevant period the income above Rs.2,50,000/- was taxable. Therefore, his taxable income comes to Rs.74,000/- (3,24,000
- 2,50,000 =) 5% of Rs.74,000/- comes to Rs.3,700/-. His net
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 income after deduction of income tax comes to (3,24,000- 3,700) Rs.3,20,300/-.
22. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi6 and having regard to the age of the deceased, 15% future prospects has to be added to his income. Therefore, future prospects comes to Rs.48,045/- (3,20,300 X15/100). His annual income comes to Rs.3,68,345 (3,20,300 + 48,045). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 32 and 33 of the judgment in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation7 which is reiterated in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra in para 37 has held that where the deceased was married having dependants upto 3, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third. It is assumed that bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Since the deceased was not a bachelor the contention of the Insurer that 50% ought to have been deducted as claimant was the sole dependant cannot be accepted.
23. Similarly the reading of the judgment in A.Manavalagan vs. A.Krishnamurthy8 case shows that, in 6 AIR 2017 SC 5157 7 AIR 2009 SC 3104 8 ILR 2004 Kar 3268
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 that case as on the date of the accident both the claimant and the deceased were employed. Therefore, it was held that income claimed has to be awarded only on the head of loss of estate and 50% has to be deducted from the income of the deceased. At the cost of repetition, it has to be said that as on the date of accident the claimant was not employed. Therefore, even that judgment cannot be justifiably applied. One-third from the income of the deceased has to be deducted and two-thirds has to be considered towards loss of income which comes to Rs.2,45,563.33 (3,68,345 X2/3=) rounded off to Rs.2,45,565/-. The applicable multiplier is 11. Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.27,01,215/- (2,45,565 X 11).
24. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 though were married were hardly aged 28 and 25 years at the time of filing of the petition. Under the circumstances claimant and both the daughters are entitled to loss of parental consortium at the rate of 40,000/- each. Further the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.30,000/- (15000 + 15000) on the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore just compensation payable is as follows:
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB
MFA No.184/2023
C/W MFA No.2435/2023
MFA No.2593/2023
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1 Loss of dependency 27,01,215/-
2 Consortium 1,20,000/-
3 Loss of estate & Funeral 30,000/-
expenses
TOTAL 28,51,215/-
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal of KSRTC deserves to be allowed and the appeals of the Insurer of the lorry and claimant deserve to be allowed in part. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) MFA No.2593/2023 is hereby allowed.
ii) MFA No.184/2023 and MFA No.2435/2023 are partly allowed.
iii) The impugned award in MVC No.520/2018 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere is modified as follows:
a) The petition in MVC No.520/2018 is partly allowed.
b) The claim petition against respondent No.3/Divisional controller KSRTC is hereby dismissed.
c) The claimant and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are granted compensation of Rs.28,51,215/- with
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40369-DB MFA No.184/2023 C/W MFA No.2435/2023 MFA No.2593/2023 interest thereon at 6% p.a. payable from the date of petition till realization.
d) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
e) Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the lorry shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of this order.
f) On such deposit, Rs.40,000/- each shall be released digitally to respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively on furnishing required documents.
g) Out of the balance amount, 50% shall be released to the claimant and remaining 50% shall be invested in any FD in any Nationalised/Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of three years.
h) Amount deposited, if any, in MFA No.2593/2023 shall be refunded to respondent No.3/KSRTC.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Akc