Sri. P V Subba Reddy vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 1838 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 26TH 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.4517 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. P V SUBBA REDDY
       S/O LATE P. LAKSHMI REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

2.     SMT. P. MANJU VANI
       W/O P.V. SUBBA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

       BOTH ARE R/AT. NO. 18-2-243C6
       3RD FLOOR, ABBANNA COLONY
       ASHOK NAGAR, THIRUPATHI
       CHITTOR DISTRICT
       ANDHRA PRADESH.
                                        .... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. K.T. GURUDEV PRASAD, ADV.,)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE
DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560001
BY ITS MANAGER.
                                        ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. F.S. DABALI, ADV.,)
                              ---
                                2



      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.9.2017, PASSED
IN MVC NO.169/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, (SCCH-
18), BENGALURU, 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 against the judgment dated

27.09.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

stated are that on 25.12.2012 at about 1.45 a.m. deceased

Divya was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.KA-09 F-

4691 from Bengaluru to Hyderabad. When the bus reached

near Giddaiah Metta on N.H.4, Kurnool District, the driver of

the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and

lost control over the same. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the bus turned turtle by the side of the road and

the deceased as well as the other passengers of the bus

sustained grievous injuries. The deceased thereafter

succumbed to her injuries.

3. The claimants namely parents thereupon filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation

on the ground that the accident took place solely on account

of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

bus. It was further pleaded that the deceased was aged 25

years at the time of accident and was employed as a HR

Executive at Wallsys Technologies, Bengaluru and was

drawing a salary of Rs.22,000/- p.m. Accordingly, the

compensation to the tune of Rs.1 Crore along with interest

was claimed. The Corporation filed statement of objections

in which inter alia, it was denied that the accident took place

on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending bus.

4. 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 himself as PW-1

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The

respondents neither examined any oral nor any documentary

evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment,

inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of

rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver.

It was further held, that the claimants are entitled to

compensation to the tune of Rs.13,14,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till

the date of realisation. In the aforesaid factual background,

this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the

Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased

at Rs.22,000/- p.m. and ought to have awarded suitable

compensation under other heads. On the other hand,

learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that no

evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove the

income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has

rightly assessed the income of the deceased. It is further

submitted that the amount of compensation is just and

proper and does not deserve any interference in this appeal.

6. 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 examined any evidence

to prove Ex.P13 i.e. letter of appointment. Therefore, in the

absence of any evidence, the income of the deceased cannot

be assessed at Rs.22,000/- p.m.. Therefore, in the fact

situation of the case, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid

amount, 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 income comes to

Rs.16,800/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, 1/2 has to be

deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a

spinster and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to

Rs.8,400/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased

which was 25 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of

'17' has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held

entitled to Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.8400 x 12 x 17) on account of

loss of dependency.

7. 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 claimants are entitled to a

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

of 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.18,23,600/-. The aforesaid amount shall

carry interest at the rate of 6% 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 allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV