Karnataka High Court
Smt Sujatha vs The Divisional Controller on 25 April, 2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
M.F.A. No.6341/2016 (MV)
c/w
M.F.A. No.6340/2016 (MV)
IN M.F.A. No.6341/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Sujatha
W/o late Ramu
Aged about 26 years
2. Kumari V.R. Kusuma
D/o late Ramu
Aged about 06 years
Since the appellants 2 and 5 are Minors
Represented by their Mother, Sujatha,
Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 5 are
Residents of 1st Main, Gowripet
Kolar-563 101.
3. Sri Muniyappa
S/o Chikka Venkatarayappa
Aged about 67 years
4. Smt. Savithramma
W/o Muniyappa
Aged about 62 years
Appellants 3 and 4 are Residents of
Vyjakuru Village, Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District-563 125.
-2-
5. Kumari Dhanushree
D/o late Ramu
Aged about 03 years
... Appellants
(By Sri K. Vishwanatha, Advocate)
AND:
The Divisional Controller
KSRTC, Kolar Division
Kolar-563 101.
... Respondent
(By Sri A.C. Balaraj, Advocate)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the
MV Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated
19.05.2016 passed in MVC No.20/2014 on the file of
the I Additional District Judge and Member, MACT,
Kolar, partly allowing the claim petition for
Compensation and seeking enhancement of
Compensation.
IN M.F.A. No.6340/2016 (MV):
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Nanjundappa
S/o Munishamappa
Aged about 47 years
2. Smt. Munirathnamma
W/o Nanjundappa
Aged about 42 years
3. Master Manohar
S/o Nanjundappa
Aged about 17 years
-3-
Since the appellant No.3 is Minor,
Represented by his Father-Nanjundappa.
All are residents of Begli Village
Kolar Taluk and District-563 101.
... Appellants
(By Sri K. Vishwanatha, Advocate)
AND:
The Divisional Controller
KSRTC, Kolar Division
Kolar-563 101.
... Respondent
(By Sri A.C. Balaraj, Advocate)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the
MV Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated
19.05.2016 passed in MVC No.19/2014 on the file of
the I Additional District Judge and Member, MACT,
Kolar, partly allowing the claim petition for
Compensation and seeking enhancement of
Compensation.
These MFAs coming on for Admission this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
MFA No.6341/2016 and MFA No.6340/2016 have been preferred by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by I Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar, in MVC Nos.20/2014 and 19/2014 dated 19.05.2016.
-4-
2. Heard. Though the appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.
3. The accident in question is not in dispute so also the involvement of the offending vehicle insured with the respondent-insurer.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2013 G.N.Manjunatha and Ramu were proceeding on TVS motorcycle from Gudnahalli to Pemmashettyhalli Village. At that time, Ramu was riding the motorcycle and G.N.Manjunatha was the pillion rider. When they came in front of the shop of Nanjundachari near Dodda Shivara Temple on Malur-Kolar road, at about 6.00 p.m. the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA.07 F.1394 came from opposite direction rashly and negligently and he lost the control over the said bus and dashed to the motorcycle on which they were proceeding and as a -5- result of the same they fell down and sustained grievous injuries and on the way to the hospital succumbed to the injuries. For having lost the bread earner, the petitioners filed the claim petition.
5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased Ramu was working as a Painter and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and deceased Manjunatha was an Electrician as well as agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On these grounds they prayed for awarding the compensation.
6. In pursuance of the notice, respondent appeared and filed written statement by denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle deceased Ramu and he was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. As such, the Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation. He further contended that the respondent has not made the owner of the motor -6- cycle as party and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and the appeal is liable to the dismissed.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
Issues in MVC No.20/2014:
1. Whether petitioners proves the deceased Sri.Ramu died due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA.07/F.1394 by its driver on 15.12.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. near Dodda Shivara Temple, in front of Nanjundachari shop, on Malur-Kolar Road, Malur Taluk, Kolar District?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
Issues in MVC No.19/2014:
1. Whether petitioners proves the deceased Sri.G.N.Manjunatha died due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA.07/F.1394 by its driver on 15.12.2013 at bout 6.00 p.m., near Dodda Shivara Temple, in front of -7- Nanjundachari shop, on Malur-Kolar Road, Malur Taluk, Kolar District?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
8. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 in MVC No.20/2014 came to be examined as PW1 and petitioner No.1 in MVC No.19/2014 came to be examined as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19. Respondent got examined the driver as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R8. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same, the appellants-claimants are before this Court.
9. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that the compensation awarded under the various heads is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation vehemently -8- argued by contending that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. There are no good grounds to enhance the compensation and the same be confirmed by dismissing the appeals.
11. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed in MVC No.19/2014 it is the case made out by the petitioners that the deceased was working as an Electrician and doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the said fact they have not produced any documents or not examined any witness. In the absence of documents, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and after deducting 50% of the income towards the personal expenses, as the deceased was a Bachelor and after applying the multiplier of '18' has awarded an amount of Rs.6,48,000/- towards loss of dependency.
12. Though under the normal circumstance the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, at -9- the time of taking the notional income the Tribunal ought to have kept into view the year of accident and the wages prevailing during that particular period. Admittedly, the accident has taken place on 15.12.2013. During the said period, the notional income of Rs.8,000/- is the yardstick which used to be taken for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalath. If the income is taken at Rs.8,000/- per month and after deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor and after applying the multiplier of '18', the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of dependency.
13. As could be seen from the judgment and award, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded under the conventional head, but in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the appellants-claimants are entitled to an amount of
- 10 -
Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads. In that light, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,94,000/-, out of that since the Corporation has paid Rs.15,000/-, after deducting the same the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.8,79,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.6,98,000/-, after deducting the same, the appellants-claimants are entitled to the additional compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- with 6% interest.
14. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed in MVC No.20/2014 it is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased Ramu was Painter by profession and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the said fact they have not produced any documents. In the absence of documents Tribunal by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month, after deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses and after applying multiplier of '17' has awarded an amount of Rs.9,18,000/- towards loss of dependency.
- 11 -
15. Though under the normal circumstances the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, at the time of awarding the compensation, the Tribunal ought to have kept into view the year of accident and the wages prevailing during the said period. Keeping in view the year of the accident, the notional income of Rs.8,000/- is the yardstick which even used to be adopted for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalath. In that light, after deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses and after applying the multiplier of '17', the appellants-claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.12,24,000/- under the head loss of dependency.
16. As could be seen from the judgment and award an amount of Rs.75,000/- has been awarded under the conventional head. But in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted supra, the appellants-claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head. In that light, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a total
- 12 -
compensation of Rs.12,94,000/-. Since the Corporation has paid Rs.15,000/- after deducting the same, the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.12,79,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.9,93,000/-, after deducting the same, the appellants-claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,86,000/- with 6% interest.
17. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.19/2014 and 20/2014 are modified as indicated above. The disbursement of the amount will be in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.
18. The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the additional compensation awarded by this Court with up-to-date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
- 13 -
Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *AP/-