Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Abdul Rasheed
2021 Latest Caselaw 6104 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            MFA No.7183 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE 560027
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                    ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT.RENUKA H R., ADV.)

AND

1.    ABDUL RASHEED
      S/O. NANNE JAM
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

2.    B B AYISHA
      W/O. ABDUL RASHEED
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

      BOTH ARE R/O AT
      BYLANRASAPURA VILLAGE
      HOSAKOTE TALUK
                                2



      BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-566571.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VASANTHAPPA,ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST     THE    JUDGMENT      AND   AWARD
DATED:21.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3675/2015
ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE,     AWARDING     COMPENSATION  OF
RS.12,05,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the KSRTC being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.7.2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in

MVC 3675/2015.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 12.8.2015 the deceased

Shek Ummar was riding motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-53-EH-0068 on Kolar-Bangalore

Road, Mugabala Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote,

at that time, KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-

07-F-1675 which was being driven in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a

result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased

sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the

injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

the deceased along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to

prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1

and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

no document is produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the

impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident

took place on account of rash and negligent driving of

the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of

which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed

to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the

claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.12,05,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9%

p.a. and directed the KSRTC to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the KSRTC has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident

and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing

carpentry work. But they have not produced any

documents to prove the income of the deceased. In

the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal is not

justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased

as Rs.9,000/-, which is on the higher side.

Secondly, considering the age and avocation of

the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is on the higher side.

Thirdly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at

9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher

side. Hence, she prays for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the claimants has raised the following counter-

contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing

carpenter work. Considering the age and avocation of

the deceased, the Tribunal is justified in taking the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. Even

as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place

in the year 2015, the notional income of the deceased

has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

Secondly, 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], in case the deceased

was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of

40% of the established income towards 'future

prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased

was below the age of 40 years. The same has been

rightly considered by the Tribunal.

Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence and considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the Tribunal has awarded just and

reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for

dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that deceased Shek

Ummar died in the road traffic accident occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

by its driver.

The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. But they have not produced

any documents to prove the income of the deceased.

In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal

considering the age and avocation of the deceased,

has rightly taken the monthly income as Rs.9,000/-

p.m. Even as per the guidelines issued by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the

accident taken place in the year 2015, the notional

income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,000/-

p.m.

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY SETHI'

(supra), the Tribunal has rightly considered addition of

40% of the income on account of future prospects.

Further, the Tribunal rightly deducted 50% of the

income of the deceased towards personal expenses

since the deceased was a bachelor and applied correct

multiplier of '18' and has awarded just and reasonable

compensation of Rs.14,58,000/- under the head of

'loss of dependency'.

In addition, the claimants are entitled for

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of

estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account

of 'funeral expenses'.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE' (supra), claimants, parents of the

deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-

each under the head 'loss of filial consortium' .

10. Thus, the overall compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no

scope for reduction of compensation.

In respect of awarding interest on the

compensation amount is concerned, in view of the

Division Bench decision of this in the case of

Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others -v- Venkateshan.V

and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected

matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the interest

granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. on the

compensation amount is reduced to 6% p.a.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The KSRTC is directed to deposit the

compensation amount of Rs.12,05,000/- 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

six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment.

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM