Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vijay Kumar vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:52373
MFA No. 901 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 901 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA
2. SRI NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
THIPPA DODDI VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563131
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN AND:
KUMAR R
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, KH ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560027.
2. SMT ANITHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O VENKATARAMAPPA
3. KUMSHRVANI
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:52373
MFA No. 901 of 2019
D/O VENKATARAMAPPA
MINOR REP BYHER MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT ANITHA
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
THIPPA DODDI VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563131.
4. SRI V SHANKAR
MAJOR S/O VENKATAPPA
R/A KOTHANUR
MULBAGAL,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563131
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
NOTICE TO R-2 & R-4 HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE ORDER
DATED:19.02.2024;
R-3 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.10.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.4589/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-11), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:52373
MFA No. 901 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The claimants are in appeal questioning the dismissal of their claim petition.
2. A claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') contending that the deceased and his wife were proceeding in a two wheeler when KSRTC bus ahead of them, suddenly applied brakes, in view of the road bumps which lie on the road, as a result of which the deceased went and rammed into the KSRTC bus, suffered injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same.
3. The claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act has been rejected by the Tribunal only on the ground that the chargesheet had been laid against the deceased himself and therefore, the claim could not be maintained.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:52373 MFA No. 901 of 2019
4. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the question of negligence cannot even be gone into by the Tribunal and, therefore, the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased was negligent was untenable.
5. Learned counsel appearing for KSRTC, Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, on the other hand, contends that the KSRTC bus driver had not committed any error and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on it. He, further, contended that a claim under Section 163A of the Act would lie only against the tortfeasor and since there was no wrong committed by the driver, liability cannot be fastened on the KSRTC bus.
6. In a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, only two requirements to be fulfilled i.e., an accident had occurred which, in turn, resulted in the death or body injury to a person and if these facts are established, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:52373 MFA No. 901 of 2019 the owner of that vehicle and consequentially its insurer would become liable.
7. Section 163A(2) of the Act categorically makes it clear that the question of negligence cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act. Thus, the only requirement under Section 163A of the Act for a Tribunal to grant compensation is, to find out whether an accident occurred and as a result of which death or body injury occurred to a victim.
8. In the instant case, admittedly the conductor of the bus himself had lodged a complaint stating that an accident had occurred and he alleged that the accident occurred due to the wrong doing of the rider of motorcycle. Thus, the first requirement of Section 163A of the Act that an accident occurred was established.
9. As far as the question of negligence is concerned, Section 163A(2) of the Act bars the Tribunal from -6- NC: 2024:KHC:52373 MFA No. 901 of 2019 entertaining any plea of negligence. It is also settled law that a claimant has the option of proceeding against the person whom he thinks was responsible for the accident and claim compensation.
10. In light of this settled position, the claimant cannot be non-suited because he proceeded to make a claim against the bus, whom he thought responsible for the accident.
11. As already noticed above, since the involvement of the bus is not in dispute, the claimant was entitled to proceed against the owner of the bus i.e., KSRTC. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal will have to be reversed.
12. Though normally the matter would have to be referred to the Tribunal for assessment of compensation, as the accident is of the year 2015, it would be appropriate to determine the same in this proceeding only.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:52373 MFA No. 901 of 2019
13. As the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.110/- per day, his monthly income would be Rs.3,300/- and his annual income would be Rs.39,600/-, rounded off to Rs.40,000/-. Consequently, considering the age of the deceased as 48 years, as per the Second Schedule, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x '13' - 1/4th) towards 'loss of dependency' after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased.
14. In addition to the above, the claimants being the sons of deceased, widow - second wife of deceased and her daughter and father of deceased, who were arrayed as respondents No.2 to 4 each of them would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards 'loss of love and affection' i.e., in all Rs.2,42,000/- (Rs.48,400/- x 5 members) and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.33,000/- under 'conventional heads'.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:52373 MFA No. 901 of 2019
15. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.
16. The KSRTC is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
17. Upon deposit of the compensation amount along with accrued interest, petitioners - sons are each entitled for 10%, respondent No.2 - second wife is entitled for 40% and respondent No.4 - father of the deceased is entitled for 20% of the compensation amount. Accordingly, the amount shall be released in their favour after proper identification.
18. The remaining 20% of the amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of respondent No.3, till she attains majority, in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of respondent No.2's - guardian choice with liberty to -9- NC: 2024:KHC:52373 MFA No. 901 of 2019 withdraw the interest accrued thereon, periodically, on the compensation amount.
19. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29