Jayalakshmi vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc
2021 Latest Caselaw 670 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

               M.F.A. NO.6556 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:

1.     JAYALAKSHMI
       W/O SWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

2.     SWAMY
       S/O DODDEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

       BOTH R/AT. KURUBANHALLI
       VILLAGE, MIRLE HOBLI
       K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
                                             ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. HARSHA G, ADV., FOR
    MR. RADHA R, ADV.,)

AND:

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.
MYSORE RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE-570001.
(OWNER-CUM- INTERNAL INSURER OF THE
KSRTC BUS BEARING REG NO.KA-13-F-1594).
                                             ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADV.)

                              ---
                                       2




      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.4.2013 PASSED
IN MVC NO.934/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT-II, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM    PETITION    FOR    COMPENSATION   AND    SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., 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 claimants seeking enhancement of the

amount of compensation against the judgment dated

22.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

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

stated are that on 28.05.2012, the deceased Rakshith KS

was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-45-J-

6430. When he reached near Mudalabeedu village, a

Karantaka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter

referred to as 'the KSRTC' for short) bus bearing

Registration No.KA-13-F-1594, which was being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the

opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle of 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 20 years at the time of

accident and was employed as a helper in operation theater

at Basappa Memorial Hospital and was earning a sum of

Rs.6,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident

took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of

the KSRTC bus by its driver. The claimants claimed

compensation to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- along with

interest.

4. The KSRTC filed written statement, in which the

mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also

pleaded that the offending KSRTC bus was not involved in

the accident. 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.1 examined herself as PW-1,

KV Kumar (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P14. The respondents examined Papanna J as RW1 and

no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the

respondents. 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.3,00,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of

compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that

the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the

deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and in any case, the same

ought to have been assessed taking into consideration the

guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority as well as Ex.P12 Certificate issued by Para Medical

Board, Ex.P13 Admit card and Ex. P14 Letter issued by BM

Hospital to Para Medical Board. 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 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 no evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove

the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and that the

Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased

notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month. 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.

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence

with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the

notional income of the deceased is to be assessed as per the

guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority.

It is pertinent to note here that the deceased at the time of

the accident was aged about 20 years and was a student of

Operation Theater Technology at Government Medical

College, BM Hospital, Mysore. Since, the accident is of the

year 2012, we deem it appropriate to assess the notional

income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month.

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.11,200/-. Since, the deceased was a bachelor,

therefore, half of the amount has to be deducted towards

personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency

comes to Rs.5,600/-. Taking into account the age of the

deceased which was 20 years at the time of accident, the

multiplier of '18' has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants

are held entitled to (Rs.5,600x12x18) i.e., Rs.12,09,600/- 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.'

AIR 2020 SC 3076 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.80,000/-. 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.13,19,600/-. Since the accident is

of the year 2012, the prevailing rate of interest for the year

2012 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized

banks being 8.5%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation

shall carry interest at the rate of 8.5% 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 appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss