Karnataka High Court
H K Shylaja vs Divisional Controller on 11 November, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46605
MFA No. 2921 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018
MFA No. 29 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2921 OF 2018
(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2018 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2024 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2024 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 2921/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. H K SHYLAJA
W/O LATE DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 2. DARSHAN A D
KIRAN S/O LATE DEVARAJA
KUMAR R
Location:
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
HIGH
COURT OF 3. DEESHANK A D
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.
4. BOREGOWDA
S/O KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.
5. NANJAMMA
W/O BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46605
MFA No. 2921 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018
MFA No. 29 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
ALL ARE R/AT
APPENAHALLI VILLAGE, YALIYURU POST,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2ND AND 3RD PETITIONER BEING MINOR
REPRESENTED BY
THEIR MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER AS GUARDIAN
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K S R T C,
B M ROAD, HASSAN DIVISION
HASSAN
(KSRTC BUS BEARINTG REG.No. KA-13-F-2047)
2. RAMAKRISHNAREDDY
S/O BYRAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
NO.1, 7TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, 3RD PHASE,
SHARADA NAGAR, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE NORTH, GKVK,
BANGALORE-65.
(OWNER OF KAWASAKI BIKE BEARING
REG.No.KA-02-TR-671)
4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-6, 202,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46605
MFA No. 2921 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018
MFA No. 29 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
BRIGEAD PLAZA, NORTHWING
2ND FLOOR, SUBEDHAR CHATRAM ROAD
ANANDARAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE 560009.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
CHANDAN COMPLEX
HARSHAMAHAL ROAD
HASSAN.
(POLICY NO 67140031140100005320
VALID FROM 15.05.2014 TO 14.05.2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI.VIJAY KUMAR.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SMT. Y ARUNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
VIDE ORDER DATED:14.10.2022, NOTICE TO R-2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UENDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12/09/2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1460/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE 4TH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SJ, HASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT
CHANNARAYAPATNA) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 992/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KSRTC, B M ROAD,
HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN,
(KSRTC BUS NO KA-13-F-2047),
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:46605
MFA No. 2921 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018
MFA No. 29 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
AND:
1. SMT. H. K. SHYLAJA
W/O. LATE DEVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
2. DARSHANA A D
S/O. LATE DEVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
3. DEESHANK A D
S/O. LATE DEVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
4. SRI. BOREGOWDA
S/O. KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUTN 84 YEARS
5. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O. BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
NO.2 AND 3 ABOVE ARE MINORS
REPTD. BY THEIR MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1 AS GUARDIAN
ALL ARE R/AT APPENAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELIYURU POST,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
6. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
S/O. BYRAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
7. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
No.6 AND 7 R/AT NO.1, 7TH MAIN,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:46605
MFA No. 2921 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018
MFA No. 29 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
22ND CROSS, 3RD PHASE,
SHARADANAGAR,
YALAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE NORTH GKVK,
BANGALORE 560065.
(OWNER OF KAWASAKI BIKE NO. KA-02-TR-671)
8. THE DIVISONAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-6,
NO. 202, BRIGEAED PLAZA, NORTH WING,
2ND FLOOR, SUBHEDHAR CHATRAM ROAD,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE 560009.
REPRESEBTED BY MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,
CHANDAN COMPLEX,
HARSHAMAHAL ROAD,
HASSAN.
(POLICY NO. 67140031140100005320) VALID FROM
15.05.2014 TO 14.05.2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
VIDE ORDER DATED:29.10.2024, NOTICE TO R-6 IS
DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-7;
SMT.Y.ARUNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-8)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:12.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1460/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
HASSAN DISTRICT, (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.12,92,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO. 29/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SAVITHRAMMA
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:46605
MFA No. 2921 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018
MFA No. 29 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, 7th MAIN,
22nd CROSS, 3rd PHASE,
SHARADANAGAR,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGLAURU 560065.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KRSRTC, K H DOUBLE ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALORE 560027.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3537/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-17, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 467/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. DR CHANDAN R @ DR CHANDAN GOWDA
S/O RAMESH GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO 16, AVALAHALLI
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI
YELAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:46605
MFA No. 2921 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018
MFA No. 29 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC K H DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560027
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA.K., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
04.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.3538/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU CITY, (SCCH-17), DISMISSING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. These appeals arise out of an accident which occurred on 31.05.2014.
2. On 08.09.2014, the legal representatives of Devaraja filed a claim petition before the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan, (for short, "the District Court at Hassan") contending that when Devaraja was crossing the road, he was hit by a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER KSRTC') bus which did not stop and sped away and as a result of the collision, Devaraja was killed.
3. Two claim petitions were also filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, "the MACT at Bengaluru"). One was by the legal representatives of Karthik Kumar, who was also killed in the same accident, and one by Dr. Chandan R., who suffered injuries in said accident.
4. In these claim petitions, it was contended that the deceased Karthik was riding the motorcycle along with Dr.Chandan as a pillion rider when they were hit by the KSRTC Bus. It was also contended that, after the KSRTC bus had hit the pedestrian Devaraja, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus and sped away and as a result of the collision between the motorcycle and the bus, the rider--Karthik was killed and the pillion rider was injured. Karthik was aged 22 years old and -9- NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER a student pursuing his third semester of Bachelor of Engineering course.
5. The aforesaid proceedings were initiated before the MACT at Bengaluru only against the KSRTC, whereas the proceedings initiated before the District Court at Hassan were against the KSRTC as well as the owner and insurer of the bike.
6. In the proceedings before the District Court at Hassan, the KSRTC denied all the allegations including the involvement of its bus and sought to contend that the pedestrian Devaraja was trying to cross the road in an intoxicated state. It was stated that the accident occurred when the bike driven by Karthik collided with the pedestrian--Devaraja, which resulted in their deaths.
7. In the proceedings before the MACT at Bengaluru, it was sought to be contended that the KSRTC bus had not collided with the pedestrian and that the accident
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the bike and had the rider of the motorcycle taken a little care and caution, the accident would not have occurred.
8. It may be pertinent to state here that the police, after registering and investigating the crime, proceeded to lay a charge-sheet against the driver of the KSRTC bus.
9. The District Court at Hassan, after assessing the evidence produced before, came to the conclusion that the accident did occur on the 31.05.2014 between the KSRTC bus and the pedestrian--Devaraja and proceeded to award a compensation of Rs.12,92,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum.
10. The MACT at Bengaluru, however, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred as a result of collision between the rider of the motorcycle and the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER pedestrian, which resulted in the death of the rider Karthik and the pedestrian--Devaraja.
11. The MACT at Bengaluru has come to the conclusion that the KSRTC bus was not involved in the accident and the evidence of RW-1 / the investigating officer indicated that he had filed a charge-sheet without conducting a proper inquiry and therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed as against the KSRTC.
12. The KSRTC which has suffered an award at Hassan and also the claimants whose claim petitions were dismissed by the MACT at Bengaluru, are in appeal.
13. The learned counsel for the claimants (both counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Devaraja, the legal representatives of Karthik and Dr.Chandan) contended that the KSRTC bus did hit the deceased Devaraja and thereafter also hit the two-wheeler, which resulted in the death of the pedestrian--
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER Devaraja and rider--Karthik and injuries to pillion-- Dr.Chandan. They submitted that the police after investigation have recorded a clear finding that the KSRTC bus was responsible for the accident and in the light of this particular fact, the findings recorded by the MACT, Bengaluru was improper.
14. They also contended that the compensation awarded was inadequate and required to be enhanced.
15. The learned counsel for the KSRTC, on the other hand, contended that the driver and also the conductor of the KSRTC bus were examined in both Courts and both of them have given clear evidence that the accident occurred without the involvement of the KSRTC bus.
16. It was highlighted that the driver and conductor of the KSRTC bus have both deposed that they witnessed the accident occurred behind their bus and therefore,
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER the question of involvement of the vehicle did not arise.
17. In this case, the District Court at Hassan has concluded that the KSRTC bus was responsible for the accident. However, the MACT at Bengaluru has recorded a contrary finding.
18. The MACT at Bengaluru has come to said conclusion on the ground that the evidence of both the driver and conductor of the KSRTC bus to the effect that the accident had occurred after the bus had moved ahead. In this view of the matter, the evidence of the driver and the conductor would have to be analysed.
19. The conductor and the driver were examined before the District Court at Hassan.
20. In order to come to the said conclusion, the MACT at Bengaluru has opined that the injuries found on Karthik--rider of the motor-cycle were only bleeding injury on his fore-arm, and abrasion on his both
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER knees, right palm, fingers and on the stomach and these injuries indicated that there could not have been any collision with the bus. The MACT at Bengaluru has taken the view that in the event of collision with the bus, there would have been severe crush injuries on the body of Karthik.
21. It has also come to the conclusion that the photographs, which were produced at Ex.R-1, indicated no damages to the backside of the motor cycle and hence, it is apparent that the bus could not have been involved.
22. Lastly, the MACT at Bengaluru has relied upon the evidence of the driver of KSRTC bus, who has stated that he had stopped the bus at Udayapura, where some passengers boarded the bus and after he had started and gone about 60 meter, he heard a noise and saw a green colour two-wheeler hitting a pedestrian, thereafter losing control and falling down
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER on the footpath. Ultimately, the MACT at Bengaluru came to the conclusion that the KSRTC bus was not involved in the accident and the investigating officer had not considered these aspects.
23. In light of the above findings of the MACT at Bengaluru, the evidence of the driver and conductor would have to be re-assessed.
24. The driver of the KSRTC bus, who was examined as RW-1 before the District Court at Hassan (MVC No.1460 of 2014), has stated as follows in the course of his examination-in-chief:
"...........DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ §¸ïì£À ¸ÉÊqï PÀ£ÀßrAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV ºÀ¹gÀÄ §tÚzÀ ¢é ZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå:PÉ.J.02 n.Dgï.671 ¨ÉÊPï CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀzÀZÁjUÉ C£ÁªÀÄvÁÛV rQÌ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÁzÀZÁjAiÀÄÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ «¨sÀdPÀzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁæ¸ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÉÎ ¨ÉÊPï DvÀ¤UÉ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ©¢ÝgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÀzÀj ¨ÉÊPï£À »A¨sÁUÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà qÁåªÉÄÃeï DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è vÉUÉzÀ bÁAiÀiÁavÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ L.JA.«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁÝUÉ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER L.JA.«. ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀªÁV £ÀzÀj ¨ÉÊPï PÉ.J.02 n.Dgï.671 £À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JqÀ¨sÁUÀªÀÅ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð dRAUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ £À£Àß §¸ïì£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¨sÁUÀ dRA DUÀ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀÆqÀ L.JA.« ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÉÊPï PÉ.J.02 n.Dgï.671 gÀ ¨ÉÊPï eÁ®PÀ DvÀ£À ¸ÉßûvÀgÉÆA¢UÉ eÁ° gÉÊqï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ DvÀ£À ¸ÉßûvÀgÀ PÉ.J.04 ºÉZï.J¸ï.6400 qÀÆåPï ¨ÉÊPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J.¦.03 ©.N.3679 gÁAiÀįï J£ï¦üïïØ ¨ÉÊPï£ÉÆA¢UÉ gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ºÉzÁÝjAiÀÄ ºÀ½îAiÀÄ ªÉÃUÀzÀ «ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁn CwªÉÃUÀªÁV eÁ°AiÀiÁV ¤®ðPÀëöåvɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉ ¬ÄAzÀ ¨ÉÊPï ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÁÛ §AzÀÄ gÀ¸ÛÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁlÄvÀÛzÀÝ ¥ÁzÁeÁj zÉêÀgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸ÀzÉà KPÁKQ £ÀÄVÎ C¥ÀWÁvÀ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. C£ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è «£Á PÁgÀt ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è M¼ÀUÉƼÀîzÀ §¸ïì£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉøï£ÀÄß ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ DgÀPÀëPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ µÀjÃRÄ ªÀÄrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤Ãr §¸ïì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹ ¸ÀļÀÄî Qæ«ÄãÀ¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÀzÀj §¸ïì AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ® CxÀªÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ¯ÁèUÀ°Ã C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è M¼ÀUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F
»£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±À CjvÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¨ÉÊPï£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖtzÀ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ ¤ÃjPÀëPÀjUÉ ¸ÀvÁåA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ JA.¹.¸ÀÄgÉñÀ, ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÁzÀ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ, £ÀAeÉÃUËqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ §¸ïì£À ZÁ®PÀ
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±ÀgÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ °TvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÀgÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:02/06/2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ ¤ÃjPÀëPÀgÀÄ F zÀÆj£À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÁßUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ vÀ¤SÉÃAiÀÄ£ÁßUÀ°Ã PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ KSRTC ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ M¼À vÀ¤SÉ £ÉqɹzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆÃ, ¹r, zÀÆj£À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ®¨sÀå«zÀÄÝ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F PÀÆqÀ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðjgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¨ÉÊPï ZÁ®PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »A§¢AiÀÄ ¸ÀªÁgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ªÉÆÃmÁgÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À næ§Æå£À¯ï£À°è JA.«.¹.£ÀA:3537/2014 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JA«.¹.£ÀA:3538/2014 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀeÁUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ wæð£À £ÀPÀ®Ä ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdj¹zÉ. DzÀ PÁgÀt CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀÀA¢gÀĪÀ CfðAiÀÄÄ PÁ£ÀƤ£ÀrAiÀÄ°è HfðvÀªÁUÀgÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è. ªÀeÁPÉÌ CºÀðªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ..........."
25. The conductor, who was examined as RW-3, has stated as follows in his cross-examination:
"...........PÀ¼ÉzÀ 11 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉJ¸ïDgïn¹ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ZÁ®PÀ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ£ÁV PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. F
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER PÉù£À ZÁ®PÀ gÀAUÀ£À eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è F C¥ÀWÁvÀ dgÀÄUÀĪÀÅzÀPÀÆÌ 6 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ »A¢¤AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ªÀiÁrvÀÛzÉÝ. ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 12 UÀAmÉUÉ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©mÉÖ. ºÁ¸À£ÀPÉÌ ªÀÄzÁݺßÀ 3.40PÉÌ §AzÀÄ 3.45 UÀAmÉUÉ ºÁ¸À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©mÉÖªÀÅ. ±ÁAwUÁæªÀÄPÉÌ §AzÁUÀ 4 CxÀªÁ 4.10 UÀAmÉ DVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. 4.10 CxÀªÁ 4.15 PÉÌ ±ÁAwUÁæªÀÄ ©nÖgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, GzÀAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ vÀ®Ä¦zÁUÀ 4.30 UÀAmÉ DVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ°è JµÀÄÖ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁ¤PÀgÀÄ §¸ïUÉ ºÀwÛzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌ EnÖ®è. ±ÁAwUÁæªÀÄzÀ°è JµÀÄÖ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀgÀÄ E½zÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀwÛzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌ ºÁQ®è. GzÀAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ°è M§â ¥ÀæAiÀÄtÂPÀgÀÄ E½zÀgÀÄ. JµÀÄÖ d£À ºÀwÛzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ §ºÀ¼À ¢£À DzÀÝjAzÀ FUÀ ºÉüÀ®Ä £É£À¦®è. GzÀAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀªÀ£ÀÄß §¸ï ©mÁÖUÀ £Á£ÀÄ §¸ï£À »A¢£À ¨ÁV°£À ¨ÁUÀzÀ°èzÉÝ. ±À§Ý §AzÁUÀ wgÀÄV £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ 3 d£ÀgÀÄ §¸ï£À »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ©¢ÝzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä §¸ï£ÀÄß ¤°è¸À°®è. £ÀªÀÄä §¸ï ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ zÀÆgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃVvÀÄÛ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤°è¸À°®è. £Á£ÀÄ §¸ï£À »AzÀ£À UÁè¸ï¤AzÀ £ÉÆÃrzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï£ÀÄß £ÉÆrzÁUÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4.30 UÀAmÉ CxÀªÁ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, AiÀiÁªÀ ªÁºÀ£À CªÀjUÉ rQÌ ªÀiÁrvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ°®, CªÀgÀÄ ©¢ÝzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÊPï£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉ. ..........."
26. A conjoint reading of these two depositions would indicate that the driver of the KSRTC bus had set up a theory that he noticed the collision between the rider of the two-wheeler driven by Karthik and the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER deceased--Devaraja through his side Rear View Mirror ("RVM"). The conductor also stated that he saw the incident through the rear wind shield. Both these two witnesses also state that they glanced back in their RVM or through their rear wind shield only after they heard a big sound. In other words, neither of these witnesses did actually see the collision, but turned around after they heard a sound and noticed the collision.
27. Obviously, if they had heard a sound and thereafter glanced backwards, it is obvious that they would not have witnessed the occurrence of the accident and would not have seen the collision.
28. It may also have to be noticed here that if the driver of the KSRTC bus had witnessed the accident in his RVM and the conductor had also witnessed the accident after they heard a big sound, it is obvious that their proximity to the spot of the accident was
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER extremely close. If the driver of a public sector undertaking sees the accident and yet does not stop the bus, that would be an unnatural reaction, especially if the bus was in no way involved in the accident.
29. If the KSRTC bus was, in any way, involved in the accident and there was no contact of any kind with the KSRTC bus either with the pedestrian or with the motor-cycle, there would be no impediment for the driver of the KSRTC bus to stop the bus at least as a humanitarian gesture.
30. The fact that the driver of the KSRTC bus goes on to state in his examination-in-chief that the riders of three motor-cycles were having a jolly ride when the accident took place, by itself, leads to an inference that driver of the bus was aware of the actual occurrence of the accident. It is incomprehensible that the driver would not know about the accident and
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER yet know that three motor-cyclists were having a jolly ride.
31. The fact that the police after investigation have come to the conclusion that there was evidence against the driver of the KSRTC bus to lay a charge-sheet is also a factor which would indicate that the involvement of the KSRTC bus.
32. The admission of the driver and the conductor of the KSRTC bus that they had stopped the bus to let the passengers alight and also took on passengers and moved away from the spot and at which point in time, the accident occurred, gives credence to the assertion of the claimants that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the KSRTC bus.
33. There is yet another factor which will have to be taken into consideration. During the course evidence of the legal representatives of Devaraja, a suggestion was put- forth by the learned counsel for the KSRTC that
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER the KSRTC had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation. If the KSRTC bus was not at all involved in the accident, the question of KSRTC paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- compensation to the claimants would not arise. The fact that the compensation was paid positively indicates the involvement of the KSRTC bus.
34. I am, therefore, of the view that the findings of the District Court at Hassan that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the KSRTC bus which resulted in the death of a pedestrian and the rider of the motor-cycle is correct and the findings of the MACT at Bengaluru that the KSRTC bus was not involved in the accident cannot be sustained.
35. The appeal in MFA No.992 of 2018 by the KSRTC is accordingly dismissed.
36. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal in terms of the award.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER In MFA No.2921 of 2018:
37. As far as quantum of compensation awarded by the District Court at Hassan for the death of the pedestrian--Deavaraja is concerned, it has fixed the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month, since there was no proof of his actual income.
38. In cases where there is no evidence to determine the actual income, it is appropriate to adopt the notional income as assessed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which, for the year 2014, would be Rs.8,500/-.
39. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi1, since the deceased was aged about 35 years, 40% of the same (Rs.3,400/-) is required to be added to said income as future prospects and the resultant income would be Rs.11,900/-. 1 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER
40. Out of the said sum, 1/4th (Rs.2,975/-) would have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as there were five dependants, as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma2. The net income would then be Rs.8,925/-.
41. As the deceased was aged 35 years, as per Sarla Verma, a multiplier of '16' would have to be applied.
42. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.8,925/- x 12 x '16') towards "loss of dependency".
43. The claimants, being the wife, two children and parents, would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards "loss of consortium" i.e., in all Rs.2,42,000/-, and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the "conventional heads". 2 Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER
44. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums :
Sl. Amount
Nature of Heads
No. (In Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
1. 17,13,600/-
(Rs.8,925/- x 12 x '16')
2. Loss of Consortium 2,42,000/-
3. Conventional Heads 36,300/-
Total : 19,91,900/-
45. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
compensation of Rs.19,91,900/- as against
Rs.12,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum (as against 9% per annum) from the date of petition till its realization.
46. The apportionment, deposit and release of the enhanced compensation amount shall be made as per the ratio adopted by the Tribunal.
47. The KSRTC is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded along with interest within a
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
48. MFA No.2921 of 2018 is accordingly allowed in part.
49. As far as compensation in respect of death of the rider of motor-cycle--Karthik Kumar and injuries suffered by the pillion--Dr.Chandan is concerned, the MACT, Bengaluru has dismissed the claim petitions.
50. In view of the findings recorded by this Court holding the driver of the KSRTC bus negligent for the accident, the compensation payable to the claimants needs to be determined by this Court. In MFA No.29 of 2024: (Death of Karthik Kumar)
51. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the dismissal of their claim petition by the MACT at Bengaluru, in which they sought compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of Karthik, are in appeal.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER
52. As per death summary, Ex.P-10, Karthik, having sustained severe traumatic brain injuries, died in the hospital while undergoing treatment on 06.06.2014 after six days of the accident i.e., 31.05.2014.
53. In order to arrive at the compensation towards loss of dependency, the monthly income of the deceased has to determined. In cases where there is no evidence to assess the actual income, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), for the accidents of the year 2014, has determined the monthly notional income at Rs.8,500/-.
54. Since Karthik was a student studying in 3rd semester of Civil Engineering course at NITTE Meenakshi Engineering College, the notional income determined by the KSLSA at Rs.8,500/- cannot be adopted. In my view, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly notional income of Rs.12,000/- since the potential of Karthik earning Rs.12,000/- per month on
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER completion of his Engineering course cannot be in serious dispute.
55. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi3, as the deceased was aged about 21 years, 40% of the same (Rs.4,800/-) is required to be added to the said income as future prospects and the resultant income would be Rs.16,800/-.
56. Out of the said sum, 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor. The net income will be Rs.8,400/-.
57. As the deceased was aged 21 years, as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma4, a multiplier of '18' would have to be applied.
3 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 Sarla Verma4 and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121,
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER
58. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.8,400/- x 12 x '18') towards "loss of dependency".
59. The claimants being the parents of the deceased, each of them would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards "loss of consortium" i.e., in all Rs.96,800/-, and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the "conventional heads".
60. Further, the claimants have also produced receipts for having paid a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- towards in-patient bills in respect of treatment given to Karthik Kumar before his demise. In this view of the matter, the claimants with would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- that had been spent by them towards medical expenses.
61. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the following sums :
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605
MFA No. 2921 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018
MFA No. 29 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
Sl. Amount
Nature of Heads
No. (In Rs.)
Loss of Dependency
1. 18,14,400/-
(Rs.8,400/- x 12 x '18')
2. Loss of Consortium 96,800/-
3. Conventional Heads 36,300/-
4. Medical expenses 5,75,000/-
Total 25,22,500/-
62. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a
compensation of Rs.25,22,500/- along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of petition till its realization, except for the delay period of 399 days in filing the appeal.
63. The KSRTC is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
64. On such deposit being made, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-
each with proportionate interest shall be kept in a
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER fixed deposit in the name of claimant Nos.1 and 2 respectively, in any nationalized bank / post office initially for a period of five years. They shall be at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued thereon.
65. Balance amount with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claimants on proper identification.
66. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal.
67. The appeal is accordingly allowed. In MFA No.467 of 2024: (Dr.Chandan-injury)
68. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the dismissal of his claim petition by the MACT at Bengaluru, in which he sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him, is in appeal.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER
69. It is noticed that the claimant was in-patient in BGS Institute of Neurosciences from 31.05.2014 to 02.06.2014 and has produced bills indicating that he has spent a sum of Rs.36,529/- for his hospitalization.
70. He has also produced bills of M.S.Ramaiah Hospital which indicated that he was admitted in the said hospital from 03.06.2014 to 06.06.2014 and claimed a sum of Rs.97,801/- and two others bills, totally amounting to Rs.1,34,454/-.
71. The wound certificate and discharge summary that was produced indicates that he had suffered a head injury which required hospitalization. It is further stated that he had multiple abrasions all over the body, no focal neurological deficits and he had fracture of the left body of mandible, fracture of left zygoma, right nasal bone, all walls of left maxillary antrum and later wall of left orbit and said injuries are grievous in nature.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER
72. In my view, having regard to the fact that there is no permanent disability and since he was hospitalized from 02.06.2014 to 06.06.2014, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as global compensation apart from a sum of Rs.1,34,454/- towards medical expenses.
73. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.2,34,454/-, along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of petition till its realization, except for the delay period of 399 days in filing the appeal.
74. 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.
75. On such deposit being made, the entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification.
76. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
*Page No.33 retyped & replaced vide Court order dated 28.11.2024
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46605 MFA No. 2921 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 992 of 2018 MFA No. 29 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER
77. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33