Karnataka High Court
Smt Sharadamma vs Ganesh U Naik on 5 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.770 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA
55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE
R/O DODDABOKIKERE VILLAGE
AND POST, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577 228
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA R.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANESH U. NAIK
S/O UPENDRA H. NAIK
37 YEARS, BADGE NO.675
YELLAPURA DEPOT
R/O URUKERE VILLAGE
KUMTA TALUK - 581 343
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, SHANTHINAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 027
3. R. G. PRASANNA
S/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA
37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
R/O AT DODDABOKIKERE
VILLAGE AND POST
2
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 228
4. B. G. RAJESH
S/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA
37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
R/AT DODDABOKIKERE
VILLAGE AND POST, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 228
5. D. G. GIRISHA
S/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA
AGED 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
R/O DODDABOKIKERE
VILLAGE AND POST, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 228
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. F.S.DABALI, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH;
R3, R4 & R5 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 19.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.339/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MMACT, KADUR,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
19.08.2017 passed in MVC No.339/2015 by the Senior Civil
Judge & MACT, Kadur, Chikkamagalur District (for short 'the
Tribunal'), petitioner no.1 therein has preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.02.2015, the
deceased Gangadharappa was riding his motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA 18/J 4674 along with one Manjappa
towards Doddabnokikeri village between Kadur and Berur.
At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA 31/F
1327 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the
deceased, consequent to which, the deceased fell down,
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
4. Petitioner no.1 is the wife of the deceased
Gangadharappa and petitioner nos.2 to 4 are his sons.
Respondent no.1 is the driver of the bus and respondent
no.2 is the Corporation to which the offending bus belongs
to.
5. After institution of the claim petition, notice was
issued to the respondents. In response, respondent no.1
remained absent and respondent no.2 appeared through its
counsel and filed objections denying the liability. To prove
their case, the petitioners examined one witness and got
marked Exs.P1 to P22. The respondents got examined one
witness and got marked Exs.R1 & R2.
6. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened
due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus
and granted a compensation of Rs.4,17,000/- along with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. Not satisfied by the same, petitioner no.1-wife of
the deceased has preferred this appeal.
7. The main contention of petitioner no.1 is that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
8. Per contra, respondent no.2-KSRTC has justified the
order of the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. The factum of accident and negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending bus not being in dispute, the only
question that arises for consideration is the quantum of
compensation.
11. The accident happened on 18.02.2015. At the time of
the accident, the deceased was aged 58 years. Though the
petitioners have claimed that he was earning an income of
Rs.40,000/- per month, no evidence is adduced to support
the claim. Under the said circumstances, notional income
has to be adopted. The Tribunal has adopted a sum of
Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income. We find the same
to be on the lower side. The accident being of the year
2015, the notional income as per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation
with the Insurance Companies, we adopt a notional income
of Rs.9,000/- per month. Petitioner no.1 is the wife of the
deceased and petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are grown up sons
of the deceased and not dependents on him. Hence, 1/3rd
of his income needs to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. Further, the deceased being 58 years, 10% has
to be added towards future prospects. As per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v.
D.T.C [(2009)6 SCC 121], a multiplier of 9 has to be
taken into consideration. Thus, on the count of loss of
dependency, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.7,12,800/- [Rs.9,000/- + 10% X 2/3rd X 12 X 9].
12. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati
[(2020)9 SCC 644], the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium.
13. In addition, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.
Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.7,82,800/-. However, it is admitted that the petitioners
have received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as ex-gratia payment
from respondent no.2-Corporation. Thus, they are entitled
to a sum of Rs.7,32,800/- as compensation.
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
Rs.7,32,800/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty
Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) as against
Rs.4,17,000/- which shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till its realization.
iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal
inasmuch as liability and disbursement
remains intact.
iv) The Corporation shall deposit the amount
determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal
within 90 days from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of the judgment and order.
v) The modified compensation amount shall be
disbursed in terms of the order of the
Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.
