Karnataka High Court
Smt. Puttalingamma vs The Managing Director on 25 November, 2022
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
M.F.A.No.9958 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA
W/O. LATE RACHAYYA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.161, DODDAGAPPANAHALLI
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA-577 301.
PRESENT R/AT NEAR MM SCHOOL
DODDATHOGUR, ELECTRONIC CITY
BENGALURU-560 100.
2. RAVI R.
S/O. LATE RACHAYYA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT 1262/20, DODDATHOGURU
BENGALURU-560 100.
3. RATHNAMMA R.,
W/O. NAARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
148, SUMITHRA STORES ROAD,
ERADU BADIYA HOUSES,
BHADRAVATHI-577 302.
4. R. GAYATHRI
W/O. V. LAKSHMIPATHI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
134, SUGAR FACTORY CAMP AREA
HARIGE, SHIMOGA - 577 301.
2
5. LILA
W/O. MADURA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
REDDY CAMP
SHIMOGA-577 301,
134, SUGAR FACTORY CAMP AREA
HARIGE, SHIMOGA - 577 301.
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC, SARIGE BHAVAN
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 27.12.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.1942/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC 3 No.1942/2016 dated 27.12.2016 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. The undisputed facts are that on 11.12.2015, at about 2.10. p.m., the deceased Rachayya was standing by the side of road, near Konappana Agrahara Signal Zebra crossing to cross the Road, at that time, the driver of BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F- 1246 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased Rachayya. Due to the said impact, the deceased Rachayya fell down on the road, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries during treatment.
3. The claimants being the wife and children of the deceased, have preferred to file claim petition seeking compensation.
4
4. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances and appreciating the material on record, has granted compensation of Rs.4,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
5. Being aggrieved by the lesser quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager one and prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5
8. The Tribunal has granted the compensation under the various heads as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in.Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 2,52,000-00
2. Loss of consortium 30,000-00
3. Loss of love and affection 75,000-00
4. Loss of estate 75,000-00
5. Transportation of dead body, 30,000-00 funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses
6. Medical expenses Rs.5,000-00 Total 4,67,000-00
9. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 72 years, he was working as a security guard. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,332/- per month and the same is taken into consideration for calculating the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenditure on the ground that the deceased was aged about 72 years. But the very fact that the deceased was working as a security guard, who belongs to economically weaker section. The claimants are the wife and major children, 6 but they belongs to economically weaker section, who contributes their income more towards the family for maintenance. Just because the deceased was 72 years old, deducting 50% of his income towards personal expenditure is not correct. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased could be deducted towards his personal expenses. The appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is '5'. Therefore, the loss of dependency is re- assessed and quantified as under:
Rs.8,332 x 2/3 x 5 x 12 = Rs.3,33,280/- rounded off to Rs.3,33,300/-.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,33,300/- is awarded under the head 'loss of dependency'.
10. The compensation awarded under other heads are found to be correct and proper. Hence, the same is undisturbed.
7
11. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the following sums:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in.Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 3,33,300-00
2. Loss of consortium 30,000-00
3. Loss of love and affection 75,000-00
4. Loss of estate 75,000-00
5. Transportation of dead body, 30,000-00 funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses
6. Medical expenses Rs.5,000-00 Total 5,48,300-00
12. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,67,000/-, but the appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,48,300/-. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.81,300/- (Rs.5,48,300 - Rs.4,67,000) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.8
ii. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.1942/2016 dated 27.12.2016 by the III Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby modified holding that the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.81,300/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
iii. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 605 days in filing the appeal.
iv. Costs made easy.
v. Ordered accordingly.
vi. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted
to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snc