Karnataka High Court
Divisional Controller vs Shanthamma on 26 June, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23791
MFA No. 389 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION,
KOLAR NOW,
REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE, BANGALORE
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. S.NIRMALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE AMARNATH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High 2. SUSHMA
Court of Karnataka
D/O LATE AMARANATH,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O NAYAKARAHALLI VILLAGE,
AND POST KOLAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 04.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 168/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, KOLAR,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,94,000/- WITH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23791
MFA No. 389 of 2022
INTEREST AT 09 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'KSRTC) under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as MV Act) against the judgment and award dated 4.11.2020 passed in MVC No.168/2015 passed by the II ADDL. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Kolar, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/KSRTC and learned counsel for respondents.
3. The appellant was respondent and respondents were petitioners before the Trial Court. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners have filed the petition under section 166 of MV Act before the tribunal for claiming compensation of Rs.25 lakhs for the death of Amarnath son of Byatappa in the road traffic accident and the petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter before the tribunal. It is alleged that the said Amarnath succumbed to the injuries on 15.2.2010 at about 08.00 p.m. On the said date, the deceased said to have come to Bangalore from his village for some work and when he was at Rojarahalli gate bus stop, at that time one KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-09-3385 going towards Kolar side and when the bus stopped, at the said bus stop he boarded into the bus, at that time the driver suddenly started and moved the bus. As a result, Amarnath fell down from the bus and sustained multiple grievous injuries.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the deceased was aged about 32 years and he was also security guard and was working at two places -4- NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022 one, at Infinite service and solutions co., ltd., and also at Aishwarya Apartment employees ltd. He was earning Rs.15000/- per month. Due to the accident the petitioners lost the dependency. Hence, they claimed compensation.
6. On receipt of the summons, the respondent/KSRTC appeared through counsel and filed a statement of objection by denying averments of the claim petition including age, occupation and income of the deceased and the liability and prayed for dismissing the petition.
7. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether petitioner proves that the accident occurred on 15/02/2010 at 8.00 p.m, Rojaranahalli gate, Srinivaspur -Kolar road, Srinivaspura Taluk is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09-3385 due to which the husband of petitioner No.1 namely Amaranath died due to grievous and fatal injuries ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom?-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022
3. To what order or award?
8. To prove the case, the petitioner No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1. and got marked the documents from Exs.P1 to P13. Also examined P.W.2/Munivenkatappa. However, respondent not lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments, the tribunal answered issue No.1 in affirmative and issue No.2 in the partly affirmative. Accordingly, granted compensation of Rs.10,94,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., which is as under;
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Towards Loss of Dependency 10,24,000/-
Towards Loss of love and affection 40,000/-
Towards Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
Towards Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 10,94,000
9. Being aggrieved by the same the
respondent/KSRTC has filed this appeal. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/KSRTC has contended though the claimants filed salary certificate drawing income of Rs.3,500/- per month, the tribunal considered Rs.8,000/- per month which is against the documentary evidence. However, as per the notional income recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, an income of Rs.5,500/- p.m. to be considered for the accidents occurred during 2010. Such being the case, taking Rs.8,000/- p.m., income is exorbitant and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the tribunal. Also contended the interest awarded is at the rate of 9% p.a., which is also exorbitant, as normally court requires to consider interest only at the rate of 6% p.a. Hence, prayed for reducing the award amount granted by the tribunal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners supported the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and prayed for dismissing this appeal. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022
12. Having heard the arguments perused the records. In respect of the accident in question, it is not in dispute, except the quantum of compensation. It is contended that the deceased was earning only Rs.3,500/- p.m., as income and therefore requires to consider only Rs.3,500/- income of the deceased. Ofcourse, there are 8 to 11 pay slips produced by the claimants, where it is mentioned only as Rs.3,500/- p.m., earning as security guard. It is also stated by the petitioner, in the trial court that the deceased was working in some other place also and totally he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, they have not produced any other documents. Therefore, it is worth to take the notional income, instead of the income stated by the petitioners. As per the chart of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident occurred during 2010-11, the amount of salary to be taken is stated as Rs.5,500/- p.m. to Rs.6500/- p.m.. In the present case, this accident occurred in February 2010 in between 2010 and 2011. Therefore, it is worth to consider Rs.6,000/- p.m., as notational income of the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022 deceased instead of Rs.5,500/- or 6,500/-. However, the tribunal not considered the future prospectus and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], the age of the deceased was below 40 years, therefore 40% of future prospectus requires to be considered. If Rs.6,000/- per month is the income, the 40% future prospectus is Rs.2400/-, total of Rs.6000 & Rs.2400 is Rs.84,00/-. Therefore, 1/3rd of Rs.8,400/- is Rs.2,800/-. The same is deducted from Rs.8,400 is Rs.5,600/- (Rs.8,400- Rs.2,800). Therefore, Rs.5,600/- requires to be considered as notional income. The age of the deceased, at the time of accident was beyond 35 and running 36 years. Therefore, the multiplier applied is 15 but not 16 as considered by the tribunal. As per the Aadhar card, the date of birth of the deceased was shown as 05.06.1974 and as on the date of accident 15.2.2010, he has crossed 35 years. Therefore, 15 multiplier is applied in this case.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022
13. Loss of Dependency:- Therefore, Rs.5600 x 12 months x 15 multiplier comes to Rs.10,08,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the loss of dependency at Rs.10,08,000/- instead of Rs.10,24,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
14. As regards to the Loss of Love And Affection, the tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/-, but the tribunal not awarded any amount towards consortium towards the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'Consortium'. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards the consortium. In view of claiming consortium, the question of granting Rs.40,000/- towards love and affection, does not arises.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022
15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards the Funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards the Loss of Estate. The conventional amount is Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the same does not requires to be reduced.
16. The petitioners are entitled for the compensation as under;
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Towards Loss of 10,08,000/-
Dependency
Towards Loss of love 40,000/-
and affection
Conventional 30,000/-
expenses
Total 10,78,000
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
Rs.10,78,000/- as against Rs.10,94,000/-.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent contended the interest shall have to be awarded only at the rate of 6% p.a. and not 9% p.a. Normally, the court will not entertain the interest awarded at the rate of 9%
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022 per annum. However this accident occurred in the year 2010 i.e, 15.02.2010, but the claim petition was filed in the year 2015, after lapse of 5 years and the tribunal took 5 years for the disposal of the claim petition. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is very much delay in disposal of the claim petition, for almost 5 years delay. Therefore, I am of the view, the interest shall be reduced to 6% p.a. from 9% p.a.
18. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment of the tribunal dated 4.11.2020 passed in MVC No.168/2015 passed by the II ADDL. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar, is hereby modified.
iii. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation for a sum of Rs.10,78,000/- at the rate of 6% p.a., instead of Rs.10,94,000/- at the rate of 9% p.a., granted by the tribunal,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23791 MFA No. 389 of 2022 iv. The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal, v. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6%. p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, vi. The amount, if any, deposited before this court shall have to be transmitted to the Tribunal and vii. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 CT:SK