The Managing Director vs Smt Jayamma B
2021 Latest Caselaw 33 Kant

                          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.

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,

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

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/-





      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

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.

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.

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.

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