Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Kum Pushpa on 14 March, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 16 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1497 OF 2017(MV-D)
In MFA Crob.16/2019
BETWEEN:
1. KUM. PUSHPA,
D/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. SRI SHIVANNA G.,
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3. SRI LOKESH G.,
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH
Digitally AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: 4. SRI SURENDRA G.,
HIGH S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
5. KUM VASUNDARA
D/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.1539/CH/76,
3RD CROSS, RAMAIAH ROAD,
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570 007.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH B., ADVOCATE)
-2-
MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KSRTC BUS DEPOT,
BANNY MANTAP,
MYSORE-570 007.
THROGUH CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BANGALORE.
2. SRI MAHANTESH,,
S/O DODDABASAPPA KUMAR,
R/AT N.KEREUNDI TAMANAHALLI,
RHANIBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERIDISTRICT - 581 115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 30.08.2021, NOTICE
TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W
SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DT.28.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.329/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE COURT OF JUDGE, PRL. SMALL CAUSES & MACT, AT
MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
In MFA NO. 1497/2017
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC BUS DEPOT,
BANNY MANTAP, MYSURU.
(OWNER-CUM-INTERNAL INSURER)
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
KSRTC, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
-3-
MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017
AND:
1. KUM PUSHPA,
D/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SRI SHIVANNA G.,
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
3. SRI LOKESH G.,
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
4. SRI SURENDRA G.,
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
5. KUM VASUNDARA,
D/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO.1539/CH/76,
3RD CROSS, RAMAIAH ROAD,
ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU 570 007.
6. SRI MAHANTESH,
S/O DODDABASAPPA KUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT N.KEREHUNDI TAMANALLI,
RHANIBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIKANTHA B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2018, NOTICE TO R6
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED28.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.329/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF JUDGE, PRL.
SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, AT MYSURU, AWARDING
-4-
MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017
COMPENSATION OF RS.6,32,734/- WITH INTEREST 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE CROB AND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. In respect of death of one Mohankumar who was aged 59 years and was unmarried, the Tribunal has awarded the following sums as compensation:
Sl. Compensation under Amount
No. different Heads in (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency Rs.5,62,734/-
2. Love and affection Rs.25,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs.20,000/-
4. Transportation and funeral Rs.15,000/-
expenses
5. Loss of life expectancy Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.6,32,734/-
2. The claimants have filed MFA Crob.No.16/2019 and the insurer has filed MFA No.1497/2017 challenging the judgment dated 28.09.2016 in MVC No.329/2016 on the -5- MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017 file of the Court of the Judge, Prl. Small Causes & MACT, at Mysuru.
3. The KSRTC contends that since the deceased was unmarried and the claimants who were his siblings were all majors, it will have to be held that they were not dependent on him and therefore, question of awarding any sums towards loss of dependency would not arise. It is also contended that in the event the Court holds that they were dependents, the split multiplier would have to be adopted.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand, contends that the compensation determined on the basis that the deceased was earning Rs.10,570/- was incorrect and this was evidenced by pay-slip, which is now being produced along with an application which indicates that he was earning a sum of Rs.18,320/-. It is also submitted that the sum awarded towards loss of love and affection is incorrect.
-6-MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017
5. As far as the contention that there was no dependency on the deceased by the claimants, it is to be noticed here that claimant Nos. 1 and 5 were admittedly unmarried sisters. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.5 Vasundara was examined. During the course of her cross- examination, she has categorically stated that she was unemployed and that she was completely dependent on her brother. It is also stated that all the siblings were unmarried and all of them were living together. In the light of the fact that the deceased had left behind two unmarried sisters aged 50 and 37 years and in the light of further fact that all of them were living together, it will have to be assumed that the unmarried sisters were at least dependent on the deceased.
6. Learned counsel for the KSRTC however relies upon a Division Bench ruling of this Court rendered in A.MANAVALAGAN VS.A.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS - ILR 2004 KAR 3268 to contend that there can be no question of awarding any sums under loss of dependency. -7- MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017
7. It is to be stated here that in that particular case the Court was dealing with a case in which admittedly the claimants were not dependent on the deceased and as a matter of fact, both husband and wife were also living in separate cities and were independent of each other insofar as earnings were concerned. In my view, this judgment can have no application to the facts of the case.
8. Learned counsel, however, relies on the illustration stated in paragraph 20(v) of the said Division Bench Judgment, wherein, the Division Bench discussed about the difference between cases where claimants were dependents and cases where claimants re not dependents and since the Division Bench had stated that non dependents were not defendant, no compensation could be awarded..
9. The said illustration at paragraph 20(v) deals with the case of a deceased-bachelor, who had two non- dependent brothers or sisters. Hence, the said ratio will not be applicable to the present facts of the case. This is -8- MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017 obviously because the deceased had left behind two unmarried sisters who had clearly and categorically stated that they were completely dependent on the deceased brother. Though they were subjected to cross-examination by the KSRTC, nothing has been elicited from them to indicate that they had an independent source of income. In fact, claimant No.5 had clearly stated that she was unable to secure a job though she had MA degree. Keeping in mind that the entire family was unmarried including two unmarried sisters, it is clear that the deceased was the only bread winner of the family and therefore, it will have to be held that the siblings were dependent on him to a very large extent. In this view of the matter, reliance placed on the said decision can be of no avail, as it has been established that the decease had left behind two unmarried sisters who were dependent on him, loss of dependency will have to be granted.
10. As far as the income is concerned, claimants have produced salary certificate which indicates that the -9- MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017 deceased was earning a sum of Rs.18,580/-. They have also produced bank passbook which shows that Rs.18,320/- was credited to the account of the deceased. The deceased was working in an Aided Institution and therefore, the salary certificate and the passbook indicated that he was earning a sum of Rs.18,320/- and therefore, Tribunal could not have determined the income at Rs.10,571/-.
11. As a consequence, income of the deceased would have to be taken as Rs.18,320/-.
12. Since, the deceased had a permanent job, 15% future prospects requires to be added, which makes his income to be Rs.21,068/- (Rs.18,320/- + 15%). As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and consequently, monthly income for the purpose of computing the compensation would be Rs.10,534/- (Rs.21,068/- - 50%).
- 10 -
MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017
13. As the deceased was aged 59 years, a multiplier of '9' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.11,37,672/- (Rs.10,534/- x 12 x 9) towards "loss of dependency".
14. The claimants being the siblings of the deceased, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards "loss of consortium" i.e., in all Rs.2,20,000/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.33,000/- under the "conventional heads".
15. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums:
Sl. Amount
Particulars
No. (In Rs.)
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.11,37,672/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,20,000/-
3. Conventional Heads Rs.33,000/-
Total Rs.13,90,672/-
16. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for
compensation of Rs.13,90,672/- as against
- 11 -
MFA.CROB No. 16 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 1497 of 2017
Rs.6,32,734/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
17. Since the claimants have produced the salary certificate only during pendency of this appeal, they would be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation only if the enhanced compensation is not deposited before the Tribunal within a period of three months from today.
18. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal in terms of the award.
The cross objection of the claimants is accordingly allowed in part and appeal of the insurer is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PGG