Karnataka High Court
Smt Mahadevamma vs The Divisional Controller on 8 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
M.F.A.No.2531/2018 c/w
M.F.A.No.905/2018 (MV)
IN M.F.A.No.2531/2018:
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA
W/O RANGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
2. SRI RANGEGOWDA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O SULAGODU VILLAGE,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571107 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H.V.BHANUPRAKASH, ADV.)
AND :
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC RURAL DIVISION,
BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU-570 015 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADV.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
-2-
26.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.112/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER MACT, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
PERIYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No.905/2018:
BETWEEN :
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADV.)
AND :
1. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA
W/O SRI RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
2. SRI RANGEGOWDA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT SULAGODU VILLAGE,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.V.BHANUPRAKASH, ADV.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
26.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.112/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, PERIYAPATNA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.10,89,000/- WITH INTEREST
AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
The claimants as well as the KSRTC (Corporation) are before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 26.09.2017 passed in MVC No.112/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Periyapatna ('Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of their son S.R. Srikanth in the road traffic accident.
4. It was contended by the claimants - parents of the deceased - S.R. Srikanth that on 12.07.2014 at about 10.30 a.m. while the deceased - S.R. Srikanth was proceeding towards Suntikoppa on his bike bearing registration No.KA-45-8309, near Cauvery Nisarga -4- Dhama at Kushalanagara, the diver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-13-F-1349 (offending vehicle) driven it in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and personal safety of others coming from the opposite direction, dashed to the bike of the deceased owing to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Periyapatna Government Hospital, where he succumbed to the accidental injuries.
5. It was contended that the deceased was working at Electronics and Controls Power Systems Private Limited, Bengaluru as Service Engineer, drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and he was contributing the same to the family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants are put to untold mental agony and loss of loving son besides the loss of dependency. On these set of facts and grounds, the claimants sought for compensation. -5-
6. In response to the notice issued, the respondent - Corporation appeared and contested the claim. Written statement was filed denying the petition averments. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the bike by the deceased himself and sympathetically, an interim compensation of Rs.15,000/- was paid to the claimants.
7. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment allowing the petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.10,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.
8. Being dissatisfied, the claimants as well as the Corporation are in appeals.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager -6- compensation muchless against the evidence on record. The compensation awarded under the different conventional heads is also on lower side and the same requires to be enhanced substantially.
10. Learned counsel for the Corporation referring to Exs.R1 to R5, the photographs submitted that the accident has occurred in the middle of the road. The tyre marks found in the photographs would indicate that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The negligence of the deceased was the cause for the accident. The deceased has contributed to the accident. This vital aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal in fixing the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was further argued that the quantum of compensation awarded under the different conventional heads is exorbitant and the same requires interference by this Court. It was -7- submitted that the driver of the bus has been acquitted in the Criminal Case No.1745/2014 vide order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the jurisdictional Court. It was further submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is on the higher side. Accordingly, sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Corporation.
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original records.
12. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle ?
ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case?-8-
Re. Point No.1
13. The police records and IMV report would indicate that the accident had occurred in the middle of the road. The photographs on which much emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the Corporation would not establish the factum of negligence and no relevancy can be placed on the said photographs which are admittedly taken when the bus was moved from the accident place. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings which requires to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is not the same while adjudicating the motor vehicle compensation case, a summary proceeding. Acquittal of the driver of the offending bus in a criminal proceeding certainly would not be of any assistance to the Corporation while dealing with the motor vehicles claim compensation under a beneficial legislation. Hence, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Corporation on the photographs as well as the acquittal order passed by the -9- competent Court would not come to the aid of the Corporation. On the other hand, the ocular and documentary evidence placed by the claimants would demonstrate the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle which caused the accident in question, the same has been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal in this regard.
Re. Point No.2.
14. The Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and applying the multiplier of '18' deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, reckoned the loss of dependency at Rs.8,64,000/-. As per Ex.P9, the salary of the deceased was Rs.96,000/- per annum. Taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.96,000/- and adding 40% of the same towards future prospects, the annual income would be Rs.1,34,400/-. Applying the multiplier of '18'
- 10 -
since the deceased was aged about 23 years and deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.12,09,600/- (1,34,400 x 18 x ½).
15. In terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Limited v/s. Somwati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644, the claimants are entitled to Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each parent); Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
16. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum requires to be reduced to 6% per annum keeping in mind the relevant factors like prevailing rate of interest and also to maintain uniformity in the orders keeping in mind the interest
- 11 -
awarded at 6% per annum consistently in identical circumstances by this Court. Appeal filed by the Corporation is allowed only insofar as rate of interest is concerned modifying the same from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.
17. For the reasons aforesaid, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.]
1. Loss of dependency 12,09,600/-
Loss of filial
2. consortium (Rs.40,000/- 80,000/-
to each parent)
3. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Towards funeral
4. 15,000/-
expenses
Total 13,19,600/-
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
- 12 -
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.13,19,600/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred only) as against Rs.10,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.
iv) The Corporation shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
- 13 -
v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
vii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PMR