Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road vs B S Krishnamurthy on 25 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2875/2015
BETWEEN
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
"TRANSPORT HOUSE"
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560027.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADV.(PH))
AND
B S KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O VENKATESHAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
1. SRI SATEESH B.K,
S/O LATE B.S. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2. SRIKANTH B.K
2
S/O LATE B.S. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
3. SANDHYA B.K
D/O LATE B.S. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
NO.39, MODEL HOUSE BLOCK,
2ND STREET, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.MAHESH, ADV. FOR
SMT. S.R.INDUMATHI, ADV. FOR R1- R3 (PH))
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:7.2.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1271/2013 ON
THE FILE OF THE 23RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, 21ST ACMM, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.7,94,830/- WITH INTEREST @8% FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS' THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the Judgment and
award passed by the 23RD Additional Small Causes
Judge, 21ST ACMM, MACT, in MVC No.1271/2013,
whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs. 7,94,830/- with interest at 8% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on
18-12-2012 at about 09.20 p.m., the deceased
B.S.Krishnamuiarthy was crossing the road at
K.R.Road and Diwan Madava Rao Road junction,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. At that time, KSRTC Bus
bearing No.KA-42-F-170 driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner dashed against the deceased.
As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries. The
claimants are the sons and daughter of the deceased.
They filed claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
3. After service of summons, the respondent
appeared through their counsel and filed a written
statement where they have taken a specific contention
that the petition is not maintainable. The driver of
the offending vehicle did not cause the accident. They
have also taken a contention that the claimants are
not dependant on the income of the deceased.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal has framed three issues. To prove their
case, the first petitioner is examined as PW.1 and they
have produced 12 documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-
12. On the other hand, the respondent has examined
one witness and they have not produced any
documents. On appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of
Rs.7,94,830/- with 8% interest per annum and
fastened the liability on the Corporation. Being
aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has filed the
above appeal for reduction of compensation.
5. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel
appearing for the Corporation has contended that as
on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged
about 70 years. The claimant Nos. 1 and 2 are the
sons and they are not dependant on the income of the
deceased. Claimant No.3 is the married daughter of
the deceased living separately and she is not
dependant on the income of the deceased. The
claimants have not taken up the contention that they
are dependant on the income of the deceased, On the
other hand, it is evident from the material on record
that they are all earning members of the family. The
tribunal without considering all these aspects of the
matter, has granted compensation for loss of
dependency and loss of estate.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing
for the claimants contend that even though the
claimants are majors, they are dependant on the
income of the deceased. At the time of the accident,
the deceased was getting pension of Rs.14,340/- and
he was doing business. The monthly income taken by
the Tribunal at Rs.14,430/- is on lower side.
Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of the parties
that even though the claimants are working they are
dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore,
the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation for
loss of dependency. He further contended that in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., vs.
PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in
(2017)16 SCC 680 the claimants are entitled to
Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for
funeral expenses. He further contended that in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED., vs. NANU RAM ALIASX CHUHRU RAM
AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the
claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each for parental
consortium. Hence, he contended that overall
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties. Perused the Judgment and award and
original records. It is not in dispute that
B.S.Krishnamurthy died in the road traffic accident
that occurred on 18-12-2012 due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA-42-F-170.
8. The specific contention of the
appellant Corporation is that the deceased
B.K.Krishnamurthy aged 70 years at the time of the
accident. At the time of the accident, he was drawing
a pension of Rs.14,340/-. Claimants 1 and 2 are
major in age. The first petitioner is working as
Engineer in IBM and the second petitioner is also an
Engineer. Both are earning and they are not
dependent on the income of the deceased. The third
claimant is a daughter of the deceased and not
dependant on the income of the deceased. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
MANVALAGAN vs. KRISHNAMURTHY AND
OTHERS reported in ILR 2004 KARNATAKA 3269
has held that there are two categories of damages on
the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss
sustained by the dependent members of his family
and secondly as loss caused to the estate of the
deceased. The relevant paragraph reads as
hereinbelow:
"Though the quantum of savings will
vary from person to person, there is a need
to standardize the quantum of savings for
determining the loss of estate (where the
claimants are not dependents) in the
absence of specific evidence to the
contrary. The quantum of savings can be
taken as one-third of the income of the
deceased where the spouses are having a
common establishment and one-fourth
where the spouses are having independent
establishments. The above will apply where
the family consists of non-dependent
spouse/ children/parents. Where the
claimants are non-dependent
brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the
estate, the savings can be taken as 15% of
the income. The above percentages, one of
course, subject to any specific evidence to
the contrary led by the claimants."
Therefore, in view of this case it is held that if the
claimants are not dependants on the income of the
deceased they are not entitled for loss of dependency.
In view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of
MANAVALAGAN (supra) the claimants are entitled
for loss of estate. It is clear from the material
available on record and the evidence of the parties
that at the time of the accident, the claimants were
living in a single apartment. Therefore, the deceased
was contributing 1/3rd of the income to the family.
Hence, the claimants are entitled for 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased for loss of estate. The
Tribunal considering the evidence and the material
available on record has rightly held that the monthly
income of the deceased was Rs.14,340/- x 1/3rd of
Rs.14,340/- = Rs.4,780/-. Since he was aged about
70 years, the multiplier applicable to the age group is
'5'. Rs.4,780/- x 12 x 5= Rs.2,86,800/-. In view of
the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
PRANAY SETHI supra, the claimants are entitled for
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. In view of the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAGMA
supra, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
for parental consortium.
9. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of estate 2,86,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of Parental 1,20,000
consortium(Rs.40,000 x
3)
Total 4,21,800
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.4,21,800/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 8%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
date of realization, within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsk/-
CT-HR
