Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt Reshma on 17 August, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012,
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
M.F.A.NO. 5994 OF 2012 (MV)
Between:
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Office, Bangalore.
Owner of KSRTC bus No.
KA-35-F-10 (Hospet Depot).
Now by the Managing Director,
NEKRTC.,
Central Offices,
Gulbarga-585 101,
Rep. by its Chief Law Officer.
... Appellant
(By Shri. F.S.Dabali, Advocate)
And:
1. Smt. Reshma,
W/o. Syed Zabiulla,
Aged 23 years.
2. Syed Nazeer,
S/o. Not known,
Aged 51 years,
Occ: Coolie.
3. Smt. Ammajan,
W/o. Syed Nazeer,
Aged 47 years.
2
4. Kum. Waheeda Banu,
D/o. Nazeer Ahmed,
Aged 23 years,
Occ: Household.
The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are
R/o. III Cross, Tank Mohalla,
Shimoga-577 201.
5. Manjunatha,
S/o. N.Mallappa,
Aged 48 years,
Driver of KSRTC bus
No.KA-35-F-10,
Badge No.1222,
Hospet Depot,
R/o. Jayasingapur Village,
Sandoor Taluk,
Bellary District-583 119.
...Respondents
******
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 12/04/2012 passed in MVC
No.1217/2011 on the file of the District Judge, Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, I Fast Track Court,
Shimoga, awarding a compensation of `7,13,500/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Corporation is directed against the judgment and award dated 12th April 2012, passed in MVC No.1217/2011, by the District Judge, 3 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga, (for short, 'Tribunal'), awarding compensation of `7,13,500/- with interest at 6% per annum, in favour of respondents 1 to 4/claimants, on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced.
2. The facts in brief are that, claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Syed Zabiulla, S/o. Syed Nazeer. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 1:45 P.M, on 09-09-2011, when the deceased Syed Zabiulla was proceeding from Ragigudda to his house on his Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-18/J-6185, slowly and cautiously, at Gadigudda Cross on Honnali Road, Shimoga, at that time, a KSRTC Bus, being driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, came at a high speed from opposite direction and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. Immediately, he was shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital and 4 thereafter shifted to Nanjappa Hospital and he died while he was being shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal.
3. On account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, the claimants, being the legal representatives of deceased, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `30.90 lakhs against the driver and owner of the KSRTC Bus, appellant/Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 12th April, 2012. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of `7,13,500/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed the Corporation to satisfy the entire award. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the Corporation is in appeal before this Court, seeking to reduce the same.
5
4. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation.
5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/ Corporation, vehemently submits that, the Tribunal grossly erred in deducting 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd, on the ground that the claimants, being the legal heirs are all major. Further, he submits that the Tribunal ought to have fixed some percentage of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also, as he also contributed to the cause of accident. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by fixing reasonable percentage of negligence on the part of deceased and also reducing the compensation by deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
6. After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after hearing the learned 6 counsel for Corporation, it reveals that the Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has specifically recorded a finding of fact at paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment that it is only account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus, belonging to the Corporation, the accident occurred, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same while being shifted to the Hospital. The said reasoning recorded by Tribunal is based on the oral and documentary evidence available on file and just and proper. Hence, I do not find any justification to interfere in the said finding.
7. Further, so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is concerned, it can be seen that the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it can be seen that the deceased was aged about 30 years, working as an Electrician and earning a sum of `10,000/- per month. The said sum may be a bit exaggeration. But, the Tribunal, after assessing the 7 oral and documentary evidence available on file and after taking into consideration the age, avocation and the year of accident, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at `4,500/- per month. The same is just and proper and I accept the same. Further, the Tribunal is also justified in adopting the multiplier of '17' having regard to the age of deceased being 30 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298).
8. Further, so far as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for Corporation for deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it can be seen that even though all the claimants are major, there is no proper source of income for the livelihood of the claimants. Out of the four claimants, there is only one male member in the family, who is aged about 52 years and his profession is coolie. It would be very difficult to make both the ends meet with the income derived out of coolie work. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances 8 of the case, I hold that the Tribunal is highly justified in deducting 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the decision cited supra. Hence, interference in the same is not justifiable.
9. Further, so far as compensation awarded towards conventional heads is concerned, it can be seen that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of `25,000/- under this head. Having regard to the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra), in fact, the claimants would be entitled to additional `20,000/- under this head. But, the same need not be considered at this stage since the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and since the claimants have not approached this Court seeking enhancement.
10. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by Tribunal both towards loss of dependency as also conventional heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. 9
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Corporation is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit by the Corporation to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
In view of disposal of the main appeal on merits, the relief sought in I.A.1/2012 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*