Karnataka High Court
Smt Nanjamma vs The Divisional Controller on 4 November, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA NO.8577 OF 2015 (MV)
C/W
MFA Nos. 1401/2014, 6853/2015, 8578/2015
9324/2015, 9325/2015, 9326/2015,
9328/2015, 9329/2015 & 3998/2015
IN MFA 8577/2015
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Nanjamma,
W/o Late. Thandavaiah @
Kayi Thandavaiah,
Aged about 48 years.
2. Shankar,
S/o Late. Thandavaiah @
Kayi Thandavaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
Both are R/o Holalu Village,
Dudda Hobli, Mandya Tq,
Mandya Dist Pin-571401.
.... Appellants
(By Sri. L.Raja, Adv.)
2
AND
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, KSRTC Bus stand,
Mandya, Pin-571401.
...Respondent
(By Sri. D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 30.05.2015
passed in MVC No.464/2011 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Mandya, Partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
IN MFA 1401/2014
BETWEEN
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Office,
K.H. Double Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore,
By its Managing Director.
...Appellant
(By Sri. D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Smt. D.Vijayamma @ Vijayalakshmi,
W/o Late. Boraiah,
Aged about 50 years.
2. Sri. Y.B.Dharshan,
S/o Late. Boraiah,
3
Aged about 31 years.
Both are R/at
No.20, Near Water Tank,
Y. Yarahalli Village,
Yaliyur Post, Kothathi Hobli,
Mandya Taluk & District-571401.
...Respondents
(By Sri.N.Gopalakrishna, Adv. for R1 & R2)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated:26.09.2013
passed in MVC No. 8261/2011 on the file of the 20th
Additional Small Causes Judge, Member MACT,
Bangalore awarding compensation of Rs.3,78,700/-
with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
IN MFA 6853/2015
BETWEEN
1. Smt. Uma,
Aged about 26 years,
W/o Late. G.B.Krishna.
2. Milana,
Aged about 8 years,
D/o Late. G.B.Krishna.
3. Hemanth,
Aged about 6 years,
S/o Late. G.B.Krishna.
Appellants No.2 & 3 are minors,
Represented by their Natural
4
Guardian Mother Appellant No.1
Smt.Uma.
4. Smt. Jayamma,
Aged about 59 years,
W/o Late. Boraiah.
5. Ramesh,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Late. Boraiah.
Lunatic represented by
His natural guardian mother
Appellant No.4 Smt. Jayamma.
Appellants No.1 to 5 are
r/at Gopalapura Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Mandya Taluk & District-571 401.
... Appellants
(By Sri. P.Nataraju, Adv.)
AND
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, KSRTC Bus stand,
Mandya-571401.
...Respondent
(By Sri. D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated:30.05.2015
passed in MVC No.39/2012 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Mandya, partly allowing the claim petition for
5
compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
IN MFA 8578/2015
BETWEEN
1. Smt. Nanjamma,
W/o Late. Thandavaiah@
Kayi Thandavaiah,
Aged about 48 years.
2. Shankar,
S/o Late. Thandavaiah @
Kayi Thandavaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
Both are R/o Holalu Village,
Dudda Hobli, Mandya Tq,
Mandya Dist -571401.
.... Appellants
(By Sri. L. Raja, Adv.)
AND
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, KSRTC Bus stand,
Mandya -571401.
...Respondent
(By Sri. D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 30.05.2015
passed in MVC No.465/2011 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Mandya, Partly allowing the claim petition for
6
compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
IN MFA 9324/2015
BETWEEN
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, KSRTC Bus stand,
Mandya, Pin-571401.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Office, K.H.Double Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560 027.
... Appellant
(By Sri.D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Smt. Nanjamma,
W/o Late. Thandavaiah @
Kayi Thandavaiaha,
Aged about 47 years.
2. Sri. Shankar H.T,
S/o Late. Thandavaiah @
Kayi Thandavaiah,
Aged about 31 years,
Both are R/o Holalu Village,
Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk,
Mandya Dist Pin-571401.
...Respondents
(By Sri. L.Raja, Adv.)
7
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 30.05.2015
passed in MVC No.464/2011 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Mandya, awarding compensation of Rs.2,31,400/-with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
deposit.
IN MFA 9325/2015
BETWEEN
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, KSRTC Bus stand,
Mandya, Pin-571401.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Office, K.H.Double Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560 027
By its Managing Director.
... Appellant
(By Sri.D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Smt. Nanjamma,
W/o Late. Thandavaiah @
Kayi Thandavaiaha,
Aged about 47 years.
2. Sri. Shankar H.T,
S/o Late. Thandavaiah @
Kayi Thandavaiah,
8
Aged about 31 years,
Both are R/o Holalu Village,
Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk,
Mandya Dist Pin-571401.
...Respondents
(By Sri. L.Raja, Adv.)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 30.05.2015
passed in MVC No.465/2011 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Mandya, awarding compensation of Rs.12,42,200/-
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
deposit.
IN MFA 9326/2015
BETWEEN
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, KSRTC Bus stand,
Mandya, Pin-571401.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Office, K.H.Double Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560 027.
... Appellant
(By Sri.D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Smt. Shivarathnamma H.T.,
W/o Late. Siddaraju,
Aged about 29 years.
9
2. Punithraj K.S.,
S/o Late. Siddaraju,
Aged about 9 years.
3. Punyashree K.S.,
D/o Late. Siddaraju,
Aged about 6 years,
Since Respondents Nos.2 & 3 are
Minor represented by natural
Guardian their mother
1st respondent
Smt. Shivathnamma H.T.
4. Smt. Kempamma,
W/o Late. Nanjanayaka @ Najaiah,
Aged about 59 years.
All are r/at
Kurikoppalu Village,
Dudda Hobli,
Mandya Taluk, Mandya District-571401.
...Respondents
(By Sri.R. Pramod, Adv. for R1, R2 & R3:
R3 is represented by R1:
R4 served)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 30.05.2015
passed in MVC No.475/2011 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Mandya, awarding compensation of Rs.25,01,600/-
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
deposit.
10
IN MFA 9328/2015
BETWEEN
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, KSRTC Bus stand,
Mandya -571401.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Office, K.H.Double Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560 027.
... Appellant
(By Sri.D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Smt. Mahadevamma,
W/o Sri. Ravalaiah,
Aged about 49 years.
2. Sri. B.R.Krishna,
S/o Late. Ravalaiah,
Aged about 32 years.
3. Smt. B.R.Shivarathna,
D/o Late. Ravalaiah,
Aged about 29 years.
All are R/at
Hosabudanaur Village,
Mandya Taluk,
Mandya District-571 401.
...Respondents
(Respondents are served)
11
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 30.05.2015
passed in MVC No.508/2011 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Mandya, awarding compensation of Rs.2,90,365/-with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
deposit.
IN MFA 9329/2015
BETWEEN
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, KSRTC Bus stand,
Mandya -571401.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Office, K.H.Double Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560 027.
... Appellant
(By Sri.D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Smt. Uma,
W/o Late. G.B.Krishna
@Balakrishna,
Aged about 27 years,
2. Milana,
D/o Late. G.B.Krishna
@ Balakrishna,
Aged about 9 years,
3. Hemanth,
12
S/o Late. G.B.Krishna@
Balakrisha,
Aged about 7 years,
Since Respondents No.2 & 3 are minors,
Represented by their Natural
Guardian Mother Respondent No.1
Smt.Uma.
4. Smt. Jayamma,
W/o Late. Boraiah.
Aged about 60 years,
5. Ramesh,
S/o Late. Boraiah.
Aged about 32 years,
All are r/at Gopalapura Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Mandya Taluk,
Mandya District-571 401.
... Respondents
(By Sri. P.Nataraju, Adv.)
This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated: 30.05.2015
passed in MVC No.39/2011 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Mandya, awarding compensation of Rs.9,72,000/-with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
deposit.
IN MFA 3998/2016
BETWEEN
The Managing Director,
13
Owner Cum Custodian of
Internal Insurance Fund,
KSRTC, Sarige Bhavana,
Kengal Hanumanthaiah,
Double Road, Bangalore-560 027.
...Appellant
(By Sri. D.Vijayakumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Sri. Sathish Kumar,
S/o Late. Rajanna,
Aged about 41 years.
2. Smt. Sakamma,
W/o Late. Rajanna,
Aged about 60 years.
3. Smt. Sharavathi,
D/o Late. Rajanna,
W/o Late Mahadeva,
Aged about 38 years.
All are r/at Kennalur Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Pandavapura Taluk,
Mandya District-571 401.
4. Smt. Latha,
D/o Late. Rajanna,
W/o Sri. Chaluvaiah,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Hemavathi Extension,
Krishnarajapet Town and Taluk,
Mandya District-571 401.
14
5. Sri Krishna,
Since deceased by LRs.
5(a) Smt. Uma,
W/o Late. Krishna
Aged about 25 years.
5(b) Milana,
D/o Late. Krishna,
Aged about 11 years.
Minors Rep. by her mother
Natural guardian mother
Smt. Uma R5.
6. The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.1551/6, M.H.Boraiah Building,
Besides Sri.Vidya,
Ganapathi Temple Building,
Vishweshwaraiah Road,
Mandya-571 401.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S.Rajashekar, Adv. for R1 to R4:
Sri. A.N.Krishnaswamy, Adv. for R6).
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the Judgment and award dated: 03.03.2016
passed in MVC No.1605/2012 on the file of the c/c
Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura,
awarding compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- with interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.
These MFAs, having been heard and reserved for
orders on 12.10.2020, coming on for pronouncement this
day, NARENDRA PRASAD J., delivered the following:
15
JUDGMENT
MFA Nos.9324/2015, 9325/2015, 9326/2015, 9328/2015 and 9329/2015 have been filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) against the judgment and award dated 30.05.2015 passed in MVC Nos.464/2011, 465/2011, 475/2011, 508/2011 and 39/2012, respectively, on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Mandya, whereas MFA Nos.8577/2015, 8578/2015 and 6853/2015 have been filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 30.05.2015 passed in MVC Nos.464/2011, 465/2011 and 39/2012, respectively, on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Mandya.
16
MFA No.1401/2014 is filed by the Corporation against the order dated 26.09.2013 passed in MVC No. 8261/2011 on the file of the 20th Additional Small Causes Judge, Member MACT, Bangalore and MFA No.3998/2015 is also filed by the Corporation against the judgment and award dated: 03.03.2016 passed in MVC No.1605/2012 on the file of the c/c Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura. Since, all the appeals arise out of the same accident, they were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.10.2011 the deceased persons along with their relatives were travelling in Maruti Omni vehicle bearing registration No.KA-09/N- 5585 towards K.R.Pet, on Mysore - K.R.Pet road and the driver of the car was driving the said car slowly 17 and cautiously. When they reached near Basavanna Temple, Hulkere Koppalu Gate, Pandavapura Taluk at about 10.30 a.m., a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-3986 which was being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Maruthi Omni vehicle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, six inmates of the vehicle died on the spot and one person succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.
3. The claimants of five deceased persons filed petitions under Section 166 of the Act before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Mandya on the ground that the deceased in MVC No.464/2011 was aged about 48 years at the time of accident and was engaged in agricultural operations and sale of coconuts and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas in MVC No.465/2011 the claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident, and had 18 completed his Ph.D. Course and about to do research. He was employed as Agricultural Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Bangalore and was getting a salary of Rs.26,022/- per month. In MVC No.475/2011 the claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and was employed as Teacher in the Government Primary School and getting a salary of Rs.16,500/- per month and he was also cultivating the land and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In MVC No.508/2011 the claimant was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist. In MVC No.39/2012 the claimant was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and was owner of an auto as well as Maruthi car and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he was also rearing cows and buffaloes and engaged in milk vending business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was also the owner of 2 acres of land and was earning 19 Rs.2,00,000/- per year. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.23,10,000/-, Rs.54,10,000/-, Rs.40,60,000/-, Rs.13,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/-, respectively in the above cases along with interest at 18% p.a.
4. The claimants in MVC No.8261/2011 filed petition under Section 166 of the Act before the MACT, XX Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore (SCCH-22) on the ground that the deceased was aged about 59 years at the time of accident and was engaged in agricultural operations and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, from tender coconut and from milk vending business he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus, his total income was Rs.32,000/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- along with interest. 20
5. The claimants in MVC No.1605/2012 filed petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Principal Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Pandavapura on the ground that the deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of accident and was a timber merchant and was also engaged in milk vending business and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.19,20,000/- along with interest.
6. The respondent filed written statements in which the averments regarding cause and circumstances of the accident, consequences of the accident, registration of criminal case, age, income, occupation of the deceased persons and effect on the claimants due to the death of the persons in the accident as put up by the claimants, were subjected to strict proof. In addition, the claim of the claimants was denied in totality. It was pleaded that at the time 21 of the accident the driver of the KSRTC bus was driving the said bus on the up-gradient on the K.R.Pet
- Mysore road and at that time Maruthi Omni vehicle came from opposite direction which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and driver of the Maruthi Omni in order to overtake one private vehicle which was going ahead of it, without observing the on coming KSRTC bus dashed against the front right portion of the KSRTC bus. It was further pleaded that the petitions are bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, as the claimants have not made the owner and insurance company of the Maruthi Omni vehicle as parties to these petitions except in MVC No.1605/2012. It was further pleaded that since the KSRTC bus is a heavy vehicle, therefore, the police had registered the case against the driver of the KSRTC bus only. It was further pleaded that the driver of the Maruthi Omni vehicle was not having 22 driving licence to drive the said vehicle. It was also further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. It was also pleaded that in MVC No.8261/2011 the Corporation has paid Rs.50,000/- to the relatives of the deceased as compensation. In MVC No.1605/2012, it was pleaded by the respondent No.3 that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. It was further pleaded that the driver of the Maruthi Omni was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the particular class of vehicle as on the date of accident and hence the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, dismissal of the petition was sought for. The respondent No.2 in MVC No.1605/2012 did not appear inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.
23
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 in MVC No.464/2011 whereas in MVC No.465/2011 they examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. In MVC No.475/2011 the claimants examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to P14. In MVC No.508/2011 claimants examined one witness as PW.1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to P4 whereas in MVC No.39/2012 examined one witness as PW.1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. In MVC No.8261/2011 the claimants examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to P14. In MVC 24 No.1605/2012 the claimants examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to P8. On behalf of respondents, in MVC Nos.464/2011, 465/2011, 475/2011, 508/2011 and 39/2012 one witness was examined as RW-1 and six documents were got exhibited namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. In MVC No.8261/2011 one witness was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked. In MVC No.1605/2012 two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and the Corporation got exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunals, by the impugned judgments, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of the contributory negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus and the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi Omni vehicle to the extent of 70% and 30% respectively, as a result of which, the deceased persons sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries (except in MVC 25 No.1605/2012). In MVC No.1605/2012, the Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus. The Tribunal further held that the claimants in MVC Nos.464/2011, 465/2011, 475/2011, 508/2011, 39/2012, 8261/2011 and 1605/2012 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,02,000/-, Rs.18,46,000/-, Rs.36,15,136/-, Rs.4,86,236/-, Rs.14,60,000/-, Rs.5,91,000/- and Rs.3,17,000/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. whereas in MVC No.8261/2011 interest at the rate of 6% p.a. is granted and directed the Corporation to deposit 70% of the total compensation deducting Rs.50,000/- which are already paid to the relatives of the deceased (except in MVC No.1605/2012). In MVC No.1605/2012 the Corporation is directed to deposit the total compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- with interest 26 at 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.
8. Sri D.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the Tribunal has wrongly held that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and that the accident is due to composite negligence of both the drivers of the KSRTC bus and the car and fixing contributory negligence of 70% on the driver of the KSRTC bus and 30% on the driver of driver of the car which is unjustifiable in law.
Secondly, the Corporation has examined the conductor of the bus, who has specifically stated that the driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road from KR Pet to Mysore and bus was proceeding towards upward gradient, at that time the car was coming from 27 opposite side, driven by its driver with a great speed and in a rash and negligent manner, in an attempt to over take the vehicle which was going ahead of him, he came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the bus. In spite of the specific contention taken by the Corporation the Tribunal erroneously fixed 70% negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and only 30% on the driver of car.
Thirdly, immediately after the accident the driver of KSRTC bus went to Pandavapura police station and gave a complaint against the driver of the car, but the jurisdictional police refused to take the complaint and falsely registered the case against the driver of the bus.
Fourthly, one Nanjamma, PW-1 in MVC No.464/2011 who is the wife of the deceased Tandavaiah, is neither a complainant nor eyewitness and falsely deposed in the case and on the basis of 28 her evidence the Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver of the bus was negligent. PW-2 in MVC No.464/2011 one Markandaiah, the alleged complainant was not traveling in the said car at the time of accident and he was not an eyewitness.
Fifthly, in MVC 1605/2012, the Tribunal wrongly recorded a finding that the driver of KSRTC bus alone is responsible for causing the accident. PW. 1 one smt. Sakamma who is the wife of deceased Rajanna admittedly is neither a complainant nor an eyewitness, she falsely deposed that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing accident. The Tribunal on the basis of her evidence has erroneously held that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in causing the accident. Even PW2 one Hemanth who alleged to be an eyewitness actually has not seen the accident and he is not a witness mentioned in the charge sheet, has falsely deposed to help the claimants . The Tribunal on 29 the basis of his evidence erroneously held that driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident.
9. In respect of quantum, he made the following submissions:
It was urged in MFA No.9324/2015 that the claimants have claimed that deceased as aged about 48 years at the time of the accident, in fact he was aged about 65 years, but the Tribunal is not justified in considering the age of the deceased as 60 years.
He further submitted that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the higher side.
It was submitted in MFA No.9325/2015 that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' in both cases, since they have already claimed compensation for the death of their husband and father, respectively, in MVC 30 No.464/2011. He further submitted that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
It was contended in MFA No.9325/2015 that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, the claimants are not entitled for addition of future prospects and the compensation granted under the conventional heads are on the higher side.
It was pointed out in MFA No.9326/2015 that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, the claimants are not entitled for addition of future prospects and the compensation granted under the conventional heads are on the higher side.
It was contended in MFA No.9328/2015 that at the time of the accident deceased was aged about 60 years, the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, the claimants are not entitled for addition of future prospects and the compensation 31 granted under the conventional heads are on the higher side.
It was alleged in MFA No.9329/2015 that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, the deduction of 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased is on the higher side, the claimants are not entitled for addition of future prospects and the compensation granted under the conventional heads are on the higher side.
It was urged in MFA No.3998/2015 that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, since the children are major, deduction of 1/3rd taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side and in MFA No.1401/2014 the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the Tribunal wrongly assessed the age of the deceased as 59 years, in fact, PW1 admits that her husband was aged about 68 years the time of the accident. Since the son was a major, 32 deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is on the higher side and the same should have been assessed at 50%.
10. Sri L.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in MFA Nos.8577/2015 and 8578/2015 submitted that in MFA No.8577/2015, at the time of the accident deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal is not justified in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. In MFA No.8578/2015 the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier on the basis of the age of the mother, instead of the age of the deceased contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA. He further contended that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - V- NANU RAM' 2018 ACJ 2782, the compensation 33 granted under the head 'loss of consortium' is on the lower side.
11. Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in MFA No.6853/2015 submits that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from the vehicle business, Rs.5,000/- from milk vending and Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and therefore the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.6,000/- per month, further the compensation granted under the conventional heads are on the lower side.
12. Sri A.N.Krishnasamy, learned counsel appearing for the Oriental insurance company - respondent No.6 in MFA 3998/2016 submitted that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus, the Tribunal in MVC No. 34 1605/2012 has rightly held that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in causing the accident.
13. Sri S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in MFA 3998/2016 submitted that it is very clear from the evidence of the parties and also evidence of eyewitness - PW 2 and spot Mahazar at Ex.P4, IMV report at Ex. P7 and charge-sheet at Ex. P8 that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of bus. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
14. Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 in MFA 9329/2015 and appellants in MFA 6853/2015 submitted that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The driver of the car 35 was driving on the left side of the road, the bus which was coming from opposite direction driven by its driver with a high-speed and negligent manner, came extreme right side and dashed against the car, the same is evident from sketch and mahazar. PW2 eyewitness to the accident has categorically stated that accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of bus. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus. He further submitted that in MVC 1605/2012, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in causing the accident. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'KUMARI KIRAN THROUGH HER FATHER HARINARAYAN vs. SAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS' (2015) 1 SCC 539. 36
15. Sri N.Gopalakrishna and Sri L.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the claimants have submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'KHENYEI vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS' (2015) 9 SCC 273, when there is a joint tortfeaser they can recover the entire compensation from one of the tortfeaser. Sri N.Gopalakrishna further submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper.
16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
17. It is the case of the claimants that on 24.10.2011 at about 10:30 a.m. the deceased were going to K.R.Pet on Mysore - K.R.Pet road in Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-09/N-5585. The 37 said car driver - deceased Krishna was driving the same in a very cautious manner on the left side of the road, when they reached near Hulikere Koppalu gate, at that time one KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA- 09/F-3986 came from KR Pet towards Mysore, driver of the said bus drove the same in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Maruti Omni. Due to that impact the driver of the Maruti Omni and other inmates were died. The specific case of the claimants is that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. To prove the negligence they have examined PW1 in all the cases, they have reiterated the petition averment as to cause and circumstances of the accident as pleaded by them. The respondent has examined the conductor of the bus, he has specifically stated that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruti 38 Omni. In all these cases though first petitioner was examined as PW1, admittedly PW1 in all the petitions are not eyewitness to the accident, similarly the evidence of PW2 Markandaiah is also not eyewitness to the accident. One Hemanth who has been examined as PW2 in MVC 1605/2012 is a witness to the mahazar. One K.S.Chandra, PW.2 in MVC 8261/ 2011 is an eyewitness to the accident, who in his evidence deposed that he has witnessed the accident that occurred on 24.10.2011 at about 10:30 a.m. from a distance of 20 feet when deceased Boraiah along with his relatives were going in Maruthi Omni car bearing registration No.KA-09/N- 5585 on Mysore
- K.R.Pet road on the extreme left side of Kappalu gate, the KSRTC bus came in the opposite direction endangering human life and came to its wrong side, i.e., to its extreme right side of the road and hit the Maruti Omni car from the opposite direction, due to 39 the impact, the Maruti Omni car has been damaged and the driver and inmates of the car died. In his cross-examination nothing worthwhile was elicited. Respondent has contended that the driver of the Maruti Omni was driving it in a rash and negligent manner came towards wrong side of the road and dashed against the bus and caused the accident. To prove their case they have examined the conductor as RW 1, but the respondent has not examined the driver of the bus. The evidence of the driver of the bus at the time of the accident would be best evidence but the respondent has not given any explanation for not examining the driver of the bus. Therefore the evidence of the respondent is not helpful to disprove the contention of claimants.
18. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, in the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal the standard of 40 proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in the civil case. No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to decide for awarding compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After all it is a summary enquiry and it is the legislation for the welfare of the Society. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings under civil rules. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. In the case of 'MANGLA RAM -v- ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED' (2018) 5 SCC 656 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:
"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the 41 respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
19. In the case on hand, the place, date, time and consequence of accident are not in dispute. As per the spot mahazar it is clear that the accident took place on the left side of the Mysore - KR Pet road proceeding towards KR Pet. It is also clear from the spot sketch that, at the place of the accident width of the road was 22 feet and there also exists 3 feet 42 footpath on both sides of the road. Admittedly the bus was proceeding towards Mysore, i.e., north to south as found in the spot sketch and so also Maruthi Omni vehicle was proceeding towards KR pet, i.e., south to north. The contents of the spot mahazar makes it clear that the road was downward gradient from north to south. It is clear from the spot sketch that the accident took place on the left side of the road proceeding towards KR Pet, the bus coming from opposite direction, has come to the right side and dashed to car and both the vehicles got damaged. As per IMV report the front bumper and front portion of the bus was damaged and also front portion of Maruti Omni vehicle was damaged, it was head-on collision. It is clear from mahazar and spot sketch that there were no tyre marks showing that the break was applied by the KSRTC bus driver in order to avoid the accident. Since it is a heavy transport vehicle, he 43 should have been more careful and tried to avoid the accident. Therefore it is clear that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus. The assumption made by the Tribunal that there was a head on collision and that there was some space left on the left side of the road, if the driver of the Maruti Omni vehicle has taken extreme left side of the road, there was a chance of avoiding the accident. But it is very clear from the evidence of the parties and materials available on record the driver of the Maruti Omni vehicle was not negligent when he was driving the car. He was driving the car on the left side of the road on his lane, the driver of the bus came right side and dashed against the Maruti Omni vehicle. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'PRAMODKUMAR RASIKBHAI JHAVERI vs. KARMASE' (2002) 6 SCC 455 has held as hereinbelow:
44
"7. The High Court found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant for two reasons. Firstly, the appellant who was driving the car did not slow down his vehicle when he saw that the truck coming at a high speed from the opposite direction was trying to overtake another car ahead of the truck and, secondly, the High Court found that there was a three feet width of the road on the left side of the car of the appellant and on seeing the oncoming truck, the appellant could have swerved his vehicle to the left side.
8. We do not think that these two reasons given by the High Court fully justify the accepted principles of contributory negligence. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is 45 of such a nature that it may properly be described as 'negligence.' Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression "contributory negligence" it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his own wrong."
9. Subject to non-requirement of the existence of duty, the question of contributory negligence is to be decided on the same principle on which the question of defendant's negligence is decided. The standard of reasonable man is as relevant in the case of plaintiff's contributory negligence as in the case of defendant's negligence. But the degree of want of care which will constitute contributory negligence, varies with the circumstances and the factual situation of the case. The following observation of the High Court of 46 Australia in Astley Vs. Austrust Ltd. (1999) 73 ALJR 403 is worthy of quoting:
"A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual
investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence; in other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the damage suffered; and in yet other cases the nature of the duty may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person or property. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the 47 plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property."
10. It has been accepted as a valid principle by various judicial authorities that where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. In Swadling Vs. Cooper [1931] A.C. 1 at page 9, Lord Hailsham said:
"Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution does not in itself constitute negligence: the plaintiff has no right to complain if in the agony of the collision the defendant fails to take some step which might have prevented a collision unless that step is one which a reasonably careful man would fairly be expected to take in the circumstances."48
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KUMARI KIRAN (supra) has held as hereinbelow:
"The observations made by this Court in the case of Juju Kuruvila (supra) surely apply to the fact situation on hand. Upon thorough examination of the facts and legal evidence on record in the present case, it cannot be said that the appellant-father was rash and negligent just on the assumption made by the Tribunal that the collision occurred in the middle of the road since the two vehicles were approaching from opposite directions of the road. However, the only aspect of the case on hand that we can reasonably assume is that the appellant-father would have taken sufficient caution while riding the motorcycle since he was travelling with his two minor children (appellant-minors). Further, upon examining the evidence produced on record, there is no proof showing negligence on the part of the appellant-father. Thus in our view, the 49 contributory negligence apportioned by the High Court at 25% on the appellant-father and 75% on the driver of the offending tractor is erroneous keeping in view the legal principles laid down by this Court on this aspect in the above referred case. Thus, we are of the firm conclusion that the negligence is wholly on the part of the driver of the offending tractor since he was driving the heavier vehicle. Therefore, we set aside the 25% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant-father as apportioned by the High Court."
20. Keeping these principles in mind, we find that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any failure on the part of the driver of the car to take any particular care or that he had breached his duty in any manner. Such breach on his part had to be proved by the Corporation as it was its burden, but the Corporation has obviously failed to 50 discharge its burden. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that driver of the Maruti Omni vehicle was negligent in causing the accident to the extent of 30% is erroneous.
21. In view of the above discussion we hold that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. QUANTUM:
IN MVC No.464/2011:
Even though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal on considering the age, avocation of the deceased has rightly assessed the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- per month. At the time of the accident deceased was aged about 60 years and hence the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' at Rs.2,52,000/-. 51
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium' and the claimant No.2, son is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of parental consortium'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 2,52,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 40,000
consortium
Total 3,62,000
52
Since the Corporation has paid interim
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the relatives of the deceased at the time of the accident, the same has to be deducted from the total compensation. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,12,000/-.
IN MVC No.465/2011:
The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and the documents produced has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.23,260/-, out of which Rs.200/- has to be deducted towards professional tax, the monthly income comes to Rs.23,060/- and the annual income comes to Rs.2,76,720/-. As per the income tax slab for the financial year 2010-11, upto Rs.1,60,000/- the tax is nil and from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- 10% has to be deducted towards tax and the same 53 comes to Rs.11,672/- and the annual income comes to Rs.2,65,048/-, since the deceased was a Government employee as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), 50% has to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the annual dependency comes to Rs.3,97,572/-, out of which since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the amount comes to Rs.1,98,786/-. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA (supra), the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. Since the deceased was aged about 35 years the applicable multiplier is '16'. Accordingly, loss of dependency comes to Rs.31,80,576/-
(Rs.1,98,786 x 16) In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 54 LTD. (supra), claimant No.1, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'filial consortium' and the claimant No.2, brother is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 31,80,576
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of filial consortium 40,000
Loss of love and 40,000
affection
Total 32,90,576
Since the Corporation has paid interim
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the relatives of the 55 deceased at the time of the accident, the same has to be deducted from the total compensation. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.32,40,576/-.
IN MVC No.475/2011:
The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and the documents produced has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,718/-, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.22,005/-, out of which 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the amount comes to Rs.16,503/-. Since the deceased was aged about 35 years the applicable multiplier is '16'.
Accordingly, loss of dependency comes to Rs.31,68,576/- (Rs.16,503 x 12 x 16). 56
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'spousal consortium', the claimant Nos.2 and 3, children are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'parental consortium' and claimant No.4, mother is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of filial consortium'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 31,68,576
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
57
consortium
Loss of parental 80,000
consortium
Loss of filial consortium 40,000
Total 33,58,576
Since the Corporation has paid interim
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the relatives of the deceased at the time of the accident, the same has to be deducted from the total compensation. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.33,08,576/-.
IN MVC No.508/2011:
The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and the documents produced has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for addition of future prospects as 10% instead of 15% since he had no fixed income. Accordingly, the monthly dependency 58 comes to Rs.4,400/-, out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the amount comes to Rs.2,933/-. Since the deceased was aged about 60 years the applicable multiplier is '9'.
Accordingly, loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,16,764/- (Rs.2,933 x 12 x 9).
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', the claimant Nos.2 and 3, children are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of parental consortium'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
59
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 3,16,764
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of parental 80,000
consortium
Total 4,66,764
Since the Corporation has paid interim
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the relatives of the deceased at the time of the accident, the same has to be deducted from the total compensation. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,16,764/-.
IN MVC No.39/2012:
Taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and the documents produced the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs.6,500/- as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 60 the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.9,100/-, out of which 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the amount comes to Rs.6,825/-. Since the deceased was aged about 36 years the applicable multiplier is '15'. Accordingly, loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,28,500/- (Rs.6,825 x 12 x 15).
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'spousal consortium', the claimant Nos.2 and 3, children are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'parental consortium', claimant No.4, mother is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of filial consortium' and claimant No.5, brother is entitled 61 for compensation under the head 'loss of love and affection'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 12,28,500
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of parental 80,000
consortium
Loss of filial consortium 40,000
Loss of love and 40,000
affection
Total 14,58,500
Since the Corporation has paid interim
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the relatives of the deceased at the time of the accident, the same has to be deducted from the total compensation. Hence, the 62 claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,08,500/-.
IN MVC No.1401/2011:
The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and the documents produced has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, since the deceased was aged 59 years, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), 10% has to be added towards future prospects.
Accordingly, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,600/-, out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the amount comes to Rs.4,400/-. Since the deceased was aged about 59 years the applicable multiplier is '9'. Accordingly, loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,75,200/- (Rs.4,400 x 12 x 9).
63
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'spousal consortium' and the claimant No.2, son is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'parental consortium'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 4,75,200
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of parental 40,000
consortium
Total 5,85,200
64
Since the Corporation has paid interim
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the relatives of the deceased at the time of the accident, the same has to be deducted from the total compensation. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,35,200/-.
IN MVC No.1605/2012:
The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and the documents produced has rightly assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.2,52,000/-
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'spousal consortium' and the claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4, children are entitled for compensation of 65 Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'parental consortium'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 2,52,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of parental 1,20,000
consortium
Total 4,42,000
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.4,42,000/-.
The claimants are entitled to the total
compensation as hereinbelow:
66
MVC No.464/2011 Rs.3,12,000/-
MVC No.465/2011 Rs.32,40,576/-
MVC No.475/2011 Rs.33,08,576/-
MVC No.508/2011 Rs.4,16,764/-
MVC No.39/2012 Rs.14,08,500/-
MVC No.1401/2011 Rs.5,35,200/-
MVC No.1605/2012 Rs.4,42,000/-
The Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Since the accident is of the year 2011, the rate of interest granted at 9% p.a. is on the higher side, hence the same is reduced to 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgments of the Claims Tribunals are modified.
67
The amounts in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunals, forthwith.
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-