1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3331 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT HOUSE
DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGARA
BENGALURU
PIN - 560 027
NOW REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.JAYAMMA.B @ JAYA B
W/O LATE SOMASHEKAR
48 YEARS
2. B.S.PUNITH
S/O LATE SOMASHEKAR
25 YEARS
3. KUMARI NAVYASHREE B S
D/O LATE SOMASHEKAR
20 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.18, I MAIN ROAD
2
KENCHENAHALLI
RAJARAJESHWERYNAGARA
BHEL LAYOUT
BENGALURU
PIN - 560 509.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 3]
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1813/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM,
BENGALURU AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.11,22,000/- WITH COST AND FUTURE INTEREST AT
8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the owner and internal insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident challenging the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the VII Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XXXII ACMM, Court of small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) in MVC No.1813/2015. 3
2. The parties are henceforth to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased B V Somashekar. It is stated in the claim petition that on 09.05.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased B V Somashekar was riding his scooter bearing registration No.KA-41-Y-2854. When he reached Jnanabharathi Junction to proceed towards Kengeri on Mysuru road, a driver of a KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F- 4870 (henceforth referred to as the 'offending vehicle') drove the bus from Kengeri towards Rajarajeshwari Arch on Mysuru road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter. As a result, the said B V Somashekar fell down and suffered grievous injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle ran away. The said Sri B V Somashekar was shifted to High Tech Hospital, Nayandahalli but he expired on the way to hospital. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 4 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the owner and internal insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The owner and internal insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition by claiming that the deceased was negligent and responsible for the accident. They also disputed the income and age of the deceased. With these rival contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial.
5. Claimant No.2 was examined as PW.1, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.2 and witness was examined as PW.3 and they marked Exs.P.1 to P.27 while the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1.
6. The Tribunal noticed that a complaint was lodged on 09.05.2014 at 11.45 p.m., by a person namely Kiran who accused the driver of the offending vehicle driving it negligently and causing the accident. Based on the complaint, Crime No.66/2014 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and upon investigation, a charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The spot sketch as per Ex.P.3 would 5 disclose that the driver of the offending vehicle had not noticed the approaching scooter ridden by the deceased.
7. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,19,117/- per annum which is evident from the income tax returns for the year 2006-07 (Ex.P23). The Tribunal, therefore, made an appropriate assessment of the monthly income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded the following compensation:
Sl. Heads under which Amount
No. compensation was awarded (in Rupees)
1 Loss of dependency 10,12,000/-
2 Loss of consortium 20,000/-
3 Loss of love and affection 60,000/-
and care taker
4 Loss of estate 10,000/-
5 Transportation of dead body 20,000/-
and funeral expenses
TOTAL 11,22,000/-
6
8. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation and the liability fixed by the Tribunal on the owner and the internal insurer of the offending vehicle, this appeal is filed.
9. Learned counsel for the owner / internal insurer of the offending vehicle contended that it had examined its driver as RW.1, who spoke that the deceased was negligent in as much as he was not wearing a helmet and he was riding his scooter negligently which resulted in the accident. In addition, learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in considering the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants submitted that since the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code based on the account of the eye witness, who lodged a complaint against the driver of the offending vehicle and having 7 regard to the evidence of PW.3, who spoke about the negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle drove it rashly and negligently.
11. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, learned counsel for claimants submitted that there is evidence to show that the deceased was self employed and that he was earning a sum of Rs.1,19,117/- in the year 2006-07 while the accident in question occurred in the year 2014 at which point of time, the deceased was supporting the family. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P23, which is the income tax return filed by the deceased for the year 2006- 07 and also copy of fees receipt dated 26.02.2016 - Ex.P24 in respect of claimant No.3, which indicates that a sum of Rs.75,000/- was paid to SJB Institute of Technology and copy of fee receipt dated 19.06.2015 which indicates that Rs.1,25,000/- was paid towards fee for the academic year 2015-16 in respect of claimant No.3. 8 It is, therefore, contended that the deceased was capable of earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Learned counsel also relied upon Ex.P25, which was the RTC extract of a land held in joint by the deceased along with his family members and contended that the deceased was also earning from his joint family source.
12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for claimants, in the face of the evidence of PW.3 as well as Exs.P1, P2, P3, P4, P8 and P9, it cannot be denied that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. There is no evidence on record to indicate that it was the driver of the offending vehicle who was negligent in driving it and causing the accident in question. Thus the finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is well founded and does not call for any interference.
9
13. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is physical evidence to indicate that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month in the year 2006-07. The deceased was aged 52 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, it is quite possible that his income must have increased from the year 2006-07 to more than Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal after considering Ex.P23 has rightly considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded the compensation of Rs.11,22,000/- along with interest at the rate 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. There is no reason as to why the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal should be interfered. However, there is no justification by the Tribunal to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation of a sum of Rs.11,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is upheld. 10 However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 8% per annum to 6% per annum. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization shall be paid by the appellant, who is the owner / internal insurer of the offending vehicle, to the claimants-respondents herein.
The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE nms/sma