The Divisional Controller vs Zeenath
2021 Latest Caselaw 1833 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

                           PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

              M.F.A. NO.4745 OF 2019 (MV-D)
                              C/W
               M.F.A. NO.869 OF 2021 (MV-D)


M.F.A. NO.4745 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE
SARIGE BHAVANA, K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560027
REP. BY IT'S CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. N. KUMAR, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     ZEENATH
       W/O LATE BHASHASAAB
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

2.     AKBAR
       S/O LATE BHASHASAAB
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
                              2



3.   SUHEEL
     S/O LATE BHASHASAAB
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

     ALL ARE R/O. MAKHAN
     PIRANGI MATA
     B M ROAD, WARD NO.1
     SHRAVANABELAGOLA CIRCLE
     CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN
     HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3)

                            ---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.660/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT, (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,85,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

M.F.A. NO.869 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. ZEENATH W/O LATE BHASHASAAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

2. AKBAR S/O LATE BHASHASAAB AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

3. SUHEEL S/O LATE BHASHASAAB AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/AT. MAKKAHAM PIRANJI MOTA B.M.ROAD, WARD NO.1 SHRAVANABELAGOLA CIRCLE CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT 573201.

... APPELLANTS

(BY MR. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.,)

AND:

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN-573201.

... RESPONDENT (BY MR. N. KUMAR, ADV.,)

---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.660/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT, (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,85,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

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

COMMON JUDGMENT

M.F.A.No.4745/2019 has been filed by the

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short),

whereas, M.F.A.No.869/2021 has been filed by the

claimants. These appeals under Section 173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act', for short) against the judgment dated 02.02.2019

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims tribunal' for

short). Since, both the appeals arise from the same

judgment and the same accident, they were heard

analogously and are being decided by this common

judgment.

2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly

stated are that on 15.04.2018 at about 8.30 a.m.

deceased Nirzar was crossing Channarayanapatna -

Bengaluru Road near Makan Cross in Channapatna

Town, at that time, the bus bearing registration No.KA-

13-F-1961 which was being driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner dashed the deceased, as a result

of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the same.

3. Thereupon the claimants filed a petition

under Section 166 (1) of the Act claiming compensation

inter alia on the ground that the deceased at the time of

accident was aged about 30 years and a bachelor and

was earning a sum of Rs.30,000 to Rs.35,000. 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

extent of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The respondent filed written statement in

which inter alia it was pleaded that deceased himself

suddenly cam eon the main road without observing the

movement of the vehicles and while getting down from

the divider fell on the road and sustained multiple

injuries. It was further pleaded that Corporation has

paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as exgratia compensation to

the claimants and since, the deceased had died on

account of his own negligence, the claimants are not

entitled to any compensation.

5. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of pleadings

of the parties framed issues and recorded evidence. The

claimants examined one Sushil as Pw1 and exhibited

documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The respondent

examined Mohan Kumar as RW1 and did not adduce any

documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal vide

impugned judgment dated 02.02.2019 inter alia held

that accident took place on account of rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It was further

held that claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.15,85,200/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum. In the aforesaid factual background, these

appeals have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted

that the income of the deceased ought to have been

assessed at Rs.12,500/- per month. However, it was

fairly admitted on behalf of claimants that no

documentary evidence has been adduced with regard to

age of the deceased. However, it is pointed out that

from the post mortem report i.e., Ex.P6 the age of the

deceased has rightly been assessed to be 30 years by

the tribunal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

Insurance Company submitted that from the Aadhar

Card i.e., Ex.P10 of the younger brother of the

deceased, it is evident that his date of birth is

08.09.1988 and he was thus approximately aged about

30 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the age of

the deceased has to be assessed as 31 years. It is

further submitted that the rate of interest should be

reduced from 9% to 6% per annum.

7. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. The issues, which arise for determination in

these appeals are with regard to the age of the

deceased and quantum of compensation. Admittedly, no

documentary evidence has been adduced by the

claimants with regard to age of the deceased. The

tribunal has relied on Ex.P6 i.e., the post mortem report

to determine the age of the deceased, which has been

taken as 30 years. In the state of evidence on record,

we do not find any infirmity with the finding recorded by

the tribunal and therefore, determine the age of the

deceased to be 30 years.

8. It is pertinent to mention that deceased was

self employed and was engaged in business of sale of

meat and no evidence has been adduced by the

claimants with regard to his income. Therefore, the

income of the deceased has to be assessed based on the

chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority. Therefore, the income of the deceased is

notionally is assessed at Rs.12,500/.

9. 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.17,500/-. Since, the

deceased was bachelor, 1/2 of the amount has to be

deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the

monthly dependency comes to Rs.8,750/-. Taking into

account the age of the deceased which was 30 years at

the time of accident, the multiplier of '17' has to be

adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to

(Rs.8,750x12x17) i.e., Rs.17,85,000/- on account of

loss of dependency.

10. 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.1,20,000/-. In addition,

claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of

loss of estate and funeral expenses. The amount of

compensation awarded under the head 'medical

expenses' is maintained. Thus, in all, the claimants are

held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,35,000/-.

Needless to state that the enhanced amount of

compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of filing of the petition till the

payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment

passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. The amount

in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal.

Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss