Smt S M Rathnamma vs The Managing Director Ksrtc on 13 December, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt S M Rathnamma vs The Managing Director Ksrtc on 13 December, 2010

Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13'?" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010.:

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MI-{JUSTICE BSREENIVASE K  

M.F.A. NO. 10312/200:3 uvm t 

BETWEEN

.1. .

SMT s M RATHNAMMA  
Age:55  
w/0 LATE T.V.RAMACHANDRAPPA 
AGE:55 YRS   _    '
R/0 MANCHANABELE VILALGT; 
KASABA HOBLI   - v_ 'V
CHIKKABALLA_PUR:_'DIS=__ RTCT    T

T R RAJESH - T 5} _ T

Age:37  T A A     ' '
S/O LATE T;xr.RA1\/IACHMIJRAPPA
AGE:37 YR':3_"   
R/0 MANCHANTAEBELE'-VITLALGE

  . «_KAS._/_k}3A HQBL1 "   EEEEE 1{\V
  CH1K¥(AE§ALLA_PUR DISTRICT

AgeA:2-9' V'  
S/0 =.LATE ~T;':\i'V§RAMACT"IANDRAPPA

jAGE:29. 

 R/no MANCHANABELE VILALGE
I ..;;ASAJ3A HOBLI

  _ CAHTIAKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

T Ii GIRISH
WAge:26
" s/0 LATE T.V.RAMACHANDRAPPA

AGE:26 YRS



2
R/O MANCHANABELE VILALGE

KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

5. T R PRAVEEN KUMAR
Age:25
S /O LATE T.V.RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGE:25 YRS
R/O MANCHANABELE VILALGE  _
KASABA HOBLI  "
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 0

6. T R PUSHPA
Age:33   
D /0 LATE T.V.RAMACHANDRA_PPA _A
AGE:33 YRS    *   
R/0 MANCHANABELE   '
KASABA HOBLI  I    I
CHIKKABALLARUR DIS,~'I"RICi'T " 

... Appellants
(By Sri.  

AND

TIIR"IxIANAGINGI'IDIRECTOR KSRTC
cEI~ITRAI;,oRFIcI;,"'K,H.RoAD
  

3f._I§3ANGALORE ' 3  V

... Respondent

 ' ' (By? Sn.  NAGARAJ, ADV.)

 TPI~I.S_fMFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST

 " '_THE~'JU§DGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.06.2008 PASSED

II\Ij[VIx/Ivc NO164/2006 ON THE FILE OF I AADDITIONAL

 a "--v.(3_IV1.L JUDGE (SR.DN.) & ADDITIONAL MACT, KOLAR,

$5..



3

PARTLY AIJIJOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR
COMPENSATION. 

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS 

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:«
J U D G M E N T

This appeal is by the claimants 'C the Tribunal both on the grou'_nd__ of '1ié§bi1ity='v:Iﬁs.»..we]I§ as quantum.

2. Heard, the is and with the consent of learned Ootrnsel°ap;5esri1j'g_VfO:' parties, it is taken up ._ ' I

3. For OT""..:teO.hvenience, the parties are referred Ia1'eIrIeterred to in the claim petition before Of the ease as pleaded in the Claim Ijpetition ai*e::---_ ' "

III.j.O1'1t--._IOII2.2001, when the deceased T.V.Ramachandra I' Ifwas* pmceeding' in two wheeler near Muniramaiahs Garden It of bus bearing NO.KA--O7'~F»--208 drove the bus in a 4 rash and negligent manner and dashed against shis two wheeler. As a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died in General Hospital on his wife and children filed a claim petition befQ.tefl_:thxei/l_1$3I}liCT; Kolar seeking compensation of awarded them a compensation ot'.e'E?.s.3,éil5,(3'15/~ at 6% pa.

5. As there is no ---._dispultereg--ar.ding death of the deceased ~ T.V.Ramar:handraw--in'V.ataccident and liability of the ,_theK it that arises for my consideratiolnin. the ' l "wh'et_he1f of compensation _ awar§;led,by th'e_ﬁl'ribui1al is just and reasonable or 'does Ee7alllli"or enhaneement?"

.5': the learned counsel appearing for parties a.i1d_vl':'perusing the judgment and award of the I of the opinion that quantum of compensation the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the tower side and hence it is required to be enhanced. 5

7. The deceased -- T.V.Ramachandra was aged between 58 and 62 years at the t.ime of his death iii"-the accident. The claimants in support of their the deceased was earning Rs.10.000/-- to Rs.l5,0y(:)_0/--'p1§'1n_. doing agriculture and business eXcepti;eXarnining':the_ A' claimant who is one of sons Vofa the"'.deceased7-have lgnot produced any document establishing then of the deceased.

Considering thetage of d.eceased°as"l5E3lyears, year of accident as 200 l his l'occ_upa..tionl asmlagriculttirist his income cotiidl -- p.rn as against Rs.2,400/-- Though there are six claimants all ._j:nu:7onAiy first claimant the wife of the the claimant and rest of them are major-. deceased. Therefore, 1/3"-1 of his Vlincome has deducted towards his personal expenses. l 'applicable to the age group of the deceased is Wloerdthe judgrnent of Supreme Court in the case of vl.y__lSaral'a'Verma. Accordingly, 'loss of dependency' works out to 6 Rs.2,16,000/-- (Rs.3,000 X 2/3 X 12 X 9) and it is awarded as against Rs.1,92,000/-- awarded by the Tribunal.

8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/_.-....tewaiicis 'Loss of Consortium' which is on the lower it is deserved to be enhanced by another Rs.15,000/-- under this head. K V' x S

9. Rs.10,000/-- awarded 'Loss of Estate' is just and4_._"pro}.ier--i. "does not require any enhancement. 0 I it 0

10. .. by the Tribunal towards 'Transportation'a_ntd_Funerai .e§:}§enses' is just and proper and does n0tv_i'equ_i1'e Vanjz "e--nh_a_n cement. ._'I'-h4ere'..:a're,__ five children and Rs.10,000/-- awarded the'Tribuna1.v-Vtcwards 'Loss of love and affection' is on the _V1Q_we1j side which deserves to be enhanced and 1 award a sum

5._'_'Qf/ -- under this head.

1 102. The deceased sustained injuries in the accident 'rrojcicjurred on 10-12-2001 and he succumbed to injuries in the hospital on 27.07.2005. So, he was hospitalised in Hosrnat Hospital, CS1 Hospital, Lakeside Medical Centre Hospital--.yand R.L.Jalappa Hospital for about 66 days. Claim.ae_nts'__' produced medical bills for Rs.2,20,430/-- towardsvidriedicai .0 transportation charges. The Tribunalllllailtery bills and stating some of the bills are"not.. supnortedl' signature of the doctor has awarded» a sum lof--l'Rsl95,612/-- towards 'Medical Experises' towards 'Conveyance Charges'. tl'ieV.ld~leceVased was bed ridden from 10.12.;2oo;17t1:11thiscydeatihieﬁ'2--?zo7.2oo5 for about 3 years 5 carefully scrutinizing the bills are the Rs.95,000/~. It has also observed Vthatlxlt-he' pertaining to conveyance and ch.argAesClr'ey'eal that the claimants must have been' -- towards attendant charges. But the llv.lVj"Ti"ibunal »faile_d~t_o4l'..--award any amount towards 'Conveyance / ' "irvansportatilondi'Charges'. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-- towards 'Medical and hospital charges' and _ / -- is awarded towards 'Conveyance / ransportation Charges'.

l3. Considering the deceased was hospitalised 66 days in 4 different hospitals a sum of Rs.25,0()0/-- is. towards 'Incidental Expenses' such as nourishrnelntd' attendant charges.

14. Thus, the clairnantspare endtitlred. c0mpensation:--

a) Loss of dependency V    . ,'  16,000/--
bl Loss of Consortium     915,000/--
(2) Loss of estate     9-'Rs."ﬁ."1"O,O0O/-

(I) Love and affe_c.t_Eo_n---in itespeet ' Of 5 children , P 30,000/--

e]Transportation"-sit"deaddlmdy.., and funeral"V.eX;penvses_p * -- Rs. 10,000/»

f) MedicaVi"E§{pe.n5ses -- Rs. 1,0o,o0o/H g] Conveyance ,/T15a1'1.spo_rta_tion' - Charges.

_ --Rs. 50.o0o/-

h) Attendant andv noorishrrgent ..v..'ChVarges'~ A a --Rs. 25,000/-- Thus, the clairnant is entitled to a total compensation of as against Rs.3,~<l5,615/» awarded by the Rvith interest at 6% pa. on the enhanced Vcdiunpensation of Rs. 1, 10.385/- from the date of claim petition the date of realisation.

15. The KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.

16. Out of the enhanced compensation with proportionate interest is orderedltollbe l_i11VestelC1'«i31d'fiXed. deposit in the name of the first c1ain'1ant_'Wh_o is i2v'ii'e A deceased in any Nationa1ised/ Schediiled avperiod of 9 years renewable once in 'evergflnjfears a rilghtlof option to withdraw interest periodically til-1.§§"renié11r1ing amount with interest' released in favour of all the claimants eq1'iaVlly.pp A_ No_o5i:der' as to sai-3, lodge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court