D. R. Chiranth Gowda vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 506 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

                  M.F.A. NO.9137 OF 2017
                           C/W
              M.F.A. NO.2880 OF 2019 (MV-D)
M.F.A. NO.9137 OF 2017
BETWEEN:

D.R. CHIRANTH GOWDA
S/O LATE SRI. D.K. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
R/AT DODDABYAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
HASSAN TALUK 573 201
BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. ANUSOOYA
D/O LATE SRI. JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.129, NEAR AKSHAVANI
VIDYUTH NAGARA
SALGAME ROAD, HASSAN 573 201.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SOMASHEKARA K.M. ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KSRTC, SHANTHINAGARA
       K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027
       REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
       HASSAN DIVISION
                              2



     HASSAN 573 201
     (KSRTC BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-57-F-1063).

2.   SMT. PUTTAMMA
     W/O SRI. KALEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
     R/AT DODDABAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     HASAN TALUK 573 201.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. F.S. DABALI, ADV., FOR R1
    MR. H.J. ANANDA, ADV., FOR R2)

                            ---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1716/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

M.F.A. NO.2880 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

1. HARSHAVARDHANA R S/O LATE D K RAVI AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

2. SMT. LEELAVATHI H T W/O LATE D K RAVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

APPELLANT NO.1 IS MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 2ND PETITONER.

3. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/AT DODDABAGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201.

... APPELLANTS (BY MR. H.J. ANANDA, ADV.,)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C SHANTHINAGARA K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER K.S.R.T.C. HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN-573201.

... RESPONDENT (BY MR. F.S. DABALI, ADV.)

---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.536/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

M.F.A.No.2880/2019 has been filed by the claimants

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation,

whereas, M.F.A.No.9137/2019 has been filed by minor son

from first wife under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short)

against the judgment dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of

the same accident and from the same judgment, they were

heard together and are being decided by this common

judgment.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 11.05.2014, the deceased DK Ravi was

proceeding as a pedestrian near Kadabahalli village,

Bangalore-Mangalore Highway. At that time, a Karnataka

State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter reffered to as

'KSRTC' for short) bus bearing Registration No.KA-13-G-555

which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed

against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident,

the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to

the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground

that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of

accident and was engaged in real estate business and was

earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. It was further

pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash

and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The claimants

claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- along

with interest.

4. The insurance company filed written statement,

in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It

was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the

negligence of the deceased himself in crossing the road. The

age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied

and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is

exorbitant and excessive.

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

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

the evidence. The claimant No.2 examined herself as PW-1,

Anusooya (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P10. The respondents examined Basappa as RW1 and

got marked document Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the

impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took

place on account of rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC

bus by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of

aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and

succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the

claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.29,99,000/-

along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of

the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that

the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the

deceased at Rs22,284/- per month on the basis of Ex.P10

Pay Slip and that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact

that the deceased was also engaged in agricultural

operations and therefore, the income of the deceased ought

to have been assessed at Rs.42,000/-. It is further submitted

that the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the

tune of 40% to the income of the deceased on account of

future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs.

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157. It is

further submitted that the Tribunal erred in making a

deduction to the tune of 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards

personal and living expenses when the number of

dependents is 4. It is also urged that the sums awarded

under the heads 'loss of consortium' and 'funeral expenses'

are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance

company submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed

the income of the deceased at Rs.22,284/- per month on the

basis of Ex.P10 Pay Slip and no evidence with regard to the

agricultural income of the deceased has been produced by

the claimants. It is further submitted that the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and

does not call for any interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The only question which arises for our consideration in this

appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The

Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at

Rs.22,284/- on the basis of Ex.P10 Salary Certificate.

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence

with regard to the income of the deceased from agriculture.

Therefore, no grounds for interference with regard to the

income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal has been

made out.

8. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS'

AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the amount has to be added on

account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income

comes to Rs.31,198/-. Since, the number of dependents is

4, therefore, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted

towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly

dependency comes to Rs.23,399/-. Taking into account the

age of the deceased which was 39 years at the time of

accident, the multiplier of '15' has to be adopted. Therefore,

the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.23,399x12x15) i.e.,

Rs.42,11,820/- on account of loss of dependency.

9. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in

'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM

& ORS.' (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently

clarified by the Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA

INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.'

IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON

30.06.2020 each of the claimant's are entitled to a sum of

Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love

and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to

Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to

Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral

expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.44,01,820/-. Since the accident is

of the year 2014, the prevailing rate of interest for the year

2014 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized

banks being 9%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation

shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of

the petition till the realization of the amount of

compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed

by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE ss