Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Hari Prasad Reddy on 14 March, 2016
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.8473/2015(MV)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER ... APPELLANT
(By Sri. F.S. DABALI, ADV.,)
AND
1. HARI PRASAD REDDY
S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY,
AGEDABOUT54 YEARS,
2. KUSHA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT,
113 C, 3RD CROSS,
4TH MAIN ROAD,
SRINIVASANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560050. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. A SREENIVASAIAH, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 13.8.2015
2
PASSED IN MVC NO.2611/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,88,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9%
P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') has presented MFA 8473/2015 calling in question the judgment and award dated 13th August 2015 in MVC No.2611/2014 of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) (for short 'MACT'), in so far as it relates to attributing actionable negligence to the driver of the bus and determining compensation.
2. In the accident that occurred on 08.04.2014 at about 7.15 pm on National Highway No.4 between Bengaluru and Kolar, one person by name Lava aged 50 was crossing the national highway near Mylapura gate, whence, the bus belonging to the appellant dashed against said Lava, who succumbed to grievous injuries. 3 Deceased said to have left behind an elder brother, the first claimant and a twin brother, the second claimant, who alleged that the deceased was a bachelor, earned `10,000/- per month and was maintaining the twin brother, the second claimant, blind in both the eyes, dependant on the income of the deceased. Claimants jointly filed a claim petition registered as MVC 2611/2014 for compensation invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That petition was opposed by filing statement of objections of the appellant arraigned as respondent inter alia denying the allegation of negligence, avocation, income of the deceased, as well as the dependency of the claimants upon the income of the deceased. The MACT having regard to the material on record, more appropriately, testimony of P.W.1 first claimant and documents, Exs.P.1 to 10 as well as testimony of the driver of the bus examined as R.W.1 returned a finding attributing actionable negligence to the driver and regard being had to Ex.P.10, disability certificate certifying that second 4 claimant was blind in both eyes eversince year 2009 held that he was dependant upon the income of the deceased; reckoned `6,000/- as monthly income, deducted 50% towards personal expenses since deceased was a bachelor, and applied multiplier 13 as applicable to age 50 of the deceased to the annual loss of income to arrive at `4,68,000/- towards loss of dependency to which was added `20,000/- towards loss of love and affection; `25,000/- towards loss to estate and `25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies expenses, totaling to `5,38,000/- from out of which `50,000/- was deducted as interim compensation, entitling claimants to the balance of `4,88,000/- with interest at 9% per annum by the judgment and award impugned.
3. There is force in the submission of Sri F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the appellant that MACT was not justified in attributing actionable negligence solely upon the driver of the bus, since, the deceased was crossing the national highway which had a median and the 5 accident occurred when there was no day light, as it was 7.15 pm, while the place of impact was at a distance of 15 feet from the edge of the tar road measuring 25 feet from the median, the Nation Highway. Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in chapter VIII relates to control of traffic and provides for Limits of Speed. Sub Section (1) states that, no person shall drive a motor vehicle or cause or allow a motor vehicle to be driven in any public place at a speed exceeding the maximum speed or below the minimum speed fixed for the vehicle under this Act or by or under any other law for the time being in force.
4. If regard is had to the fact that accident occurred on a national highway No.4 between Kolar and Bengaluru, it is needless to state that driver of the bus entitled to drive the vehicle at a speed the limit of which is prescribed for the national highway, since meant for vehicular traffic and not for pedestrians to criss cross on the road. The danger and the risk involved in 6 crossing the national highway cannot be better explained. It is for the person crossing the national highway to be circumspect before even venturing to do so, more appropriately, since motor vehicles traverse at high speed. In the dark of the night and as the State Government has not provided sufficient lighting on the national highway and the mere use of head lights of the bus by itself and nothing more it cannot be said the driver could have detected the movement of persons crossing the national highway. The place of impact is 15 feet from the edge of the national highway, which had a median dividing the road into two halves each measuring 15 feet in width. In other words the deceased had crossed the median to a distance of 10 feet when the accident occurred. In the circumstances, it cannot but be said that the deceased was 'J' walking on the national highway, hence contributed to the negligence.
5. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was not justified in attributing actionable negligence only to the 7 driver of the bus in question. In the fact, circumstances and evidence on record negligence at 50:50 as between deceased and driver of the bus, is established, holding each of them to be equally responsible.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there was no evidence worthwhile to establish that 2nd claimant was dependant upon the income of the deceased. The said submission is noticed only to be rejected. Evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the certificate issued by the doctors of Minto Hospital (Eye Hospital) which is at an undisputed pointed of time i.e., 29.07.2009, 5 years prior to accident and marked as Ex.P.10 certifying that 2nd claimant was 100% blind in both eyes, being a twin brother of the deceased, it cannot be ruled out that he was dependant upon the income of the deceased.
7. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that award of interest at 9% per annum is excessive and contrary to the decision of the 8 Division Bench in Smt.P.Ramadevi vs. Sri C.B.Saikrishna and others1 whence it was held that compensation paid is for pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss and the interest is awarded for delayed payment of such compensation while compensation, is an amount paid in advance for any loss of life or loss of dependency or loss of earnings, not being a debt, qualifies for interest at 6% per annum.
8. Learned counsel points to the decision of another co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Geetha and others2 , whence it was held thus:
"13. xxx Generally speaking a composite rate of 6% should be considered satisfactory without any specific itemization because the component of compensation in the 'interest pool' is comparatively smaller and the sizable component is the amount awarded for the loss of future dependency. We, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal have an undoubted discretion to award 1 AIR 1994 KAR 8 2 AIR 1989 KAR 104 9 higher rates of interest, if in their opinion, the circumstances of the particular case justify such higher-rates."
9. The examination of the judgment and award impugned, there is not a whisper over justification to award interest at 9% per annum in the absence of reasons, findings and conclusion. The MACT was not justified in awarding interest at 9% per annum, particularly in the case of claim for damages, since it is not a debt. Regard being had to the judgments noticed supra of the Division Bench and co-ordinate Division Bench, it is needless to state that award of 6% interest per annum is just and proper.
10. The deceased was a bachelor and did not have a family. Although it is claimed that deceased was a mason in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of that fact the MACT reckoned `6,000/- per month as the income, in the facts and circumstances as income cannot be found fault with.
10
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding attributing actionable negligence solely on the driver of the bus is set-aside. Contributory negligence is attributed to both drivers of the vehicle and the deceased in the ratio of 50:50. So also, finding of the MACT awarding interest at 9% per annum is set aside and interest at 6% per annum is awarded. The judgment and award is modified accordingly and in all other respects, remains unaltered. Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the MACT concerned, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm