Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Kulsumbi on 7 September, 2010
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 07'?" DAY OF' sEpTEMB;iaC2:'T(j1j"eO' PRESENT _m__ THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE K. AND" 1 THE HON'BLE MRS. J§;sTIcE;:C'}3.,vVV._r_»NA"G*-ARAMCHNA MFA No.33é7'[2o'64 BETWEEN: North West Transport_Ce_QVrp'o%ra't.;5:9;1 " ' Central Office;*.je»v_V .4 Gokul Road, '--Hru.b1iajj-~AAL4" 4' -- By its Managing I3,iVr't;\..;';«?;<)V'I'"-._._'_ _ .' .../appellant. (By [email protected]' M'. Khannur, Advocate.) é ______ .. 1. ' W/0.Rajesab Nadaf Aged aboC'u__tAe1=65 years, Occ: Nil, I Sm4'Cfi.I\/iV:'u.rr1raz Begaum .1 C"'W/o.Ba"busab Babulal Nadaf about 40 years, , C Household work, ~»-Kiumari Reshma Banu D/0.BabL1sab Q13 Babulal Nadaf Age: Mag'e>r. Occ: Student, to 4. Kumar Sameer Ali S/o.BabL:sab {cf}. Babulal Nadaf Age: Major, Occ: Student, S. Kumar Abdul Rehman _- S/o.Babusab (gig Babulai Nadaf ' Age: Major, Occ: Student, ' t All are R/o.No.20o/B, Shanthim'§<etan, Near Madhav Nagar, I~{u_b1£. ' (By Sri.V.M.Shee1Aavanth_,_Adv'oeatef} iv .. This MFA" 2:5' Vt"/'_.:§(eVtv')"x'r'3'1°"E\':/IV Act against the judgment'and""a3wa1=d--.__da__1:'ed'?_E3/8/2004 passed in MVC N0.355'~,--' 'ofixdthve file of the P1'}.CiVi1 Judge (SV1':D'IiA..)V.:lf,E3l.1't"(3fi NIHACZT, Hubli, awarding compensation of'-"RVs»§'5,8«v9;'2OO]- with interest at the rate of 6% .p.a--.V date of petition till deposit. T1:._:fAs" appeax'1'A..e:oini:11g on for final hearing, this Dr)' i;-LK.gBhak't'havatsa1a, J., delivered the JUDGMENT
AA This appeal is directed against judgment .A"4'V.'j~a_a'a"dhV§aevard dated 13/8/2004 made in MVC % DJ 3310.355/I999 on the file of Pr}. Civil Judge (Sr.D:j.) and Addl. MACT, at Hubli.
2. The brief facts of the case_-"Eea::d.i>fi~g filing of the appeal by the North Road Transport Corporation*:[in_V shto-rt' shei stated as under:
The responderitsi:I\TQ=.'i¥VtQ._iiE3.if.heifein filed a claim petition L}--r1'd_e;1I"-- Se__ct§;o.ir'i };«66f_"o.f_.__Hi\:/1otor Vehicles Act 1988 "seeking grant of comper1sa:,tii<i)ii;':j'"'dais with costs and interest frciniidhe and driver of the bus, Babusab @ Babulal died in a motor accident that" 24/9/1998. The claimants are VV'.;-jiiiiiijo;-theri}wiffe*a11d three children of the deceased Tihey have stated that the deceased '=._'E3aibLisa'b' was working as a mechanic in the apijaeililiant RTC and when he was coming by waik. on the extreme side cf the road, after finishing the NW", work assigned to him and when he was near I-Igu-bli Hosur City KSRTC Depot, First Gate, a chassis bearing No.HRR--l161_l.6 belonging: it road transport corporation, dr;i'lvMen"«byr i;tsV:"d_riV'e'r came in a rash and negligent rnanrier frofmlA"Hios"t.1rvi V side towards Vidyanagar.
suddenly turned the sound horn, in arash and dashed agamstf £?:ai?5V11s;%b%.#p i7Aé;" of which Babusab cliedl in the claim petition that__ was drawing salary of Rs.7,48'7/- were depending upon incofpesrof Therefore, they prayed for conipensat.ivo"n_from the owner of the vehicle as Stated above road transport corporation filed l'--.st'agte.Air}.'1erili; of objections denying the averments of petition and also taken a contention that lit'-..:th«elllegai representatives of the deceased were paid i i '-./1 a sum of Rs.1,59,800/s as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act {in short 'W.C.A.-Qt') and therefore they are not liable to compensation under M.V.Act.
4. On 23/8/2002 the:|C1:ai:n'*s_ s*f1ji'bur§1é:u1_'t"« framed the following: _ IssUEs,__\_%
1. Whether the ~.aIIege"d* due to rash dV:rivVing of Registration o'--. H Ra; j1;3:t5 of K. s . RT. (3 . :9
2. Babusab had
-..sx1,1st4ai.ned.7' fa"taA1w:injuries in the said 5t-tCCi.dent"?"' **** much compensation the ciairhants are entitled to?
4. t .. award or order?
support of the case of the claimants the deceased got himself examined as L/-V '''' "-
63 PW.1 and got marked copy of FIR, Vs'-pot panchanama, postmortem report, charge.'..__ls.helewt9*V salary Certificate as EX.P.1 to 13.5. in reb't._1:tta;lV.vvthe.l.f RTC has got examined its officezrlsiilas' Rlw.-I1 and got marked copy of the_ ord'eArl"».pasS.§";,ilg.by V Commissioner for and appointment order as for the reasons judgment, answered ahat2i"'lnlfa§éi"affirmauve. Issue No.3 was the claimants are entitled l_or._ of Rs.'7,49,000/-- and deducted awarded by the Qommisisiorner W.C.Act and held that ai:rriot;Vi:r:~-t__of Rs.5,89,200/~ along with costs V'-sil1S.all be paid by road transport corporation, lllhis is impugned in this appeal by the Learned counsel for the appellant that as per Section 167 of the M.V.Act, the as/'<~----_,.
claimants having opted to ciaim compensation under the W.C.Act, they were not entitled V. compensation under Section 166 of Vehicles Act }988. it is also quantum of compensation a_w_arde'd by thTe-".t.'3':r'i'::3uf:d'i't is exorbitant. _ .. A .5
7. Per contra, ,--.1earVnCCi':-. eo_U.nse'I'~...foi" the respondent--c}aimants siib'n1.'1t_s§jchat.d_'*ien"'-View of the decision repor_ted&:'---in .:A:C_:JVVV'1':?V§'>9 (Gujarat State vs. Hathibhai Senghabhqi others) the claimants are e11t_itIed°~,to' Vc'E_aAi:f1Veompensation under the eté§"L1--i:Ader Section 166 of M.V.Act. of the arguments addressed by ddv'--x.the I'eet'fnevd."e'odnse1s for the parties, the foilowing
-._.d'_j:..p_oi.,nts wo_ti1i~d arise for our consideration. The claimants, having opted to claim compensation under the 1 E W.C.Act§ are they entitied to claim eoriipensation under Section 166 of M.V.Act'?
ii) If answer to point No.1 is affirmative, whether qtiiaiztiurn' Compensation _awarde.d exorbitant?
9. Our answervi_t'e._ the_i:ah_o.vie~-..points is as under ';Poir'it. 'affirmative.
Point' Nd';2i:iTi{r1.At'he negative. 1_€:'§, ii The claimants Viz., re--sp».2>.r1'd.e11.tstt'\§.d.'1_ and 2 are the mother and wife of dee'eiaseci.i'j_"I5i'1ey are rustic ladies. The deceased a m~~ee'hanic in RTC. When the deceased was the left side of the road, a new bus beiongirig to KSRTC came and dashed i K 0 against him. As a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and died. Since the deceased die_d___in a motor accident, the claimants were entitled"fo--~ifi.lp:e.." a claim petition under Section 1.66 of V' and seek compensation against:"tihe'«l§'Ei[C 't-lr5.:ex'g owner of the chassis. The decea's_e:d_was_--gett_i.nvg."a" salary of Rs.7,487/--. On ac"ci.o"unt .o'f_ig.noria.nic'e'Vof the procedure, the.':ri.t1sti«'ci'ii 'i1ié5.jdiié'S¢ Wihtvhifvmifiol' children of the deceased';hfiieidi an".§;piip_'.lication for compensation the =W:;CfA:ct:f'ullefterrnination of compensation iiiindeirwit'h_e'"..l\/£;V.Act is different from the W.C.Acit2--i'_l\l~ov d'o1,i"l:i't ..the44Commissioner under the it has' .. awarded compensation of allowing the application, the ciairnpantsVlziavejfllled a claim petition under Section 156 of.44the"V.Mi'i/.Act. If the claim petition filed under of M.V.Act is held to be contrary to 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants suffer irreparable loss and injury as a paltry e 3, E E..m,\J _ 10 amount of Rs.l,59,8OO/M is awarded under 'the W.C.Act and the same cannot be just and adejq:.i_'ate.v_' compensation towards death of the V' winner of the family. He was 4:E3""'y'oarsi_'i automobile mechanic c1rawin:'g *-_a salary. Rs.7,487'/M. Keeping in View fiacts live hold that there is no i'ri"i't'lie.iic"ontentii'o11'iiof the learned counsel for the point of rnaintainabilityf Section 166 of the iiiri.ei'1tlered in Gujarat State .iAiifl'lfa--n_;spo'r.ti"-....___Co.rporation case, the compensation~awariidiedi:."'-finder the W.C.Act was dpeductefptlii ttfromi"~t,hie amount payable under the il\;'£__.\l.:J~'ic:t. decision is applicable, on all the foursftro Case on record. in the instant case also tihe'i".aTribL1nal has deducted compensation ai.zV'a.rciie«d under W.C.Act. Hence, we answer point affirmative.
'3 ORDER 1} The appeai fails and the same hereby dismissed.
ii) The registry is directesitutd"trfa--«ns.;mAi:t»«._ the statutory amount if; t:ieposi:ti_;t'o* ' the Tribunal.
iii) The appe11afm__ two' months time frdm the baélegn-Ce "e0;'r1pxe 1:-3; 1:fi'evn...§ amount