Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Smt.Vahida Begum And Ors on 2 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MFA NO.202096/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Controller,
K.S.R.T.C., Hospet Division,
Hospet, Dist: Bellary,
Rep. by its Chief Law Officer.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Vahida Begum W/o Mohd. Usman,
Aged about 57 years, Occ: HH Work,
2. Khaleel S/o Mohd. Usman,
Aged about 44 years,
3. Saleem S/o Mohd. Usman,
Aged about 41 years,
4. Jaleel S/o Mohd. Usman,
Aged about 40 years,
2
5. Mahaboob Pasha S/o Mohd. Usman,
Aged about 38 years,
6. Sajeed S/o Mohd. Usman,
Aged about 36 years,
All are R/o Krishnapur Camp,
Tq: Shorapur, Dist: Yadgir-585 201.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Chaitanya Kumar C.M., Advocate)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the
judgment and award dated 23.03.2016 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shorapur, in MVC No.247/2014,
by rejecting the claim of the respondents against the
Corporation.
This appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for
short 'KSRTC') has preferred this appeal under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V.
Act'), assailing the judgment and award dated 23.03.2016
passed in MVC No.247/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, Shorapur (for short 'the Tribunal'), challenging the
liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
2. The claimants filed a petition before the
Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming
compensation of Rs.26,20,000/- on account of death of
one Mohd. Usman S/o Hussain Patel, who died in a fatal
road traffic accident, contending that on 12.10.2013 at
about 4.30 p.m. on Bidar-Bangalore main road, near
Krishna Canteen at Bijaspur Bus-Stand, when the
deceased was proceeding on TVS XL Motorbike bearing
No.KA-32-V-7749, the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-35-
F-32 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
motorbike, due to which the deceased sustained injuries
and succumbed to the same. The deceased was a
Government servant working as a peon in Tahasildar office
at Shorapur and was earning Rs.18,924/- per month.
Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and claimant
Nos.2 to 6 are the sons of the deceased. The claimants
were solely dependent on the deceased and the deceased
was sole breadwinner of the family.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the
Tribunal, the KSRTC appeared and filed objections,
denying that the accident occurred due to the sole
negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and
contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the motorbike by the deceased himself
and the compensation claimed by the claimants is on the
higher side.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on
12.10.2013 at about 4.30 pm the
deceased Mohd. Usman was going to
Tahasil office Shorapur in TVS-XL
motorbike No.KA-32-V-7749 for night
duty and when the said vehicle came
near Krishna Canteen Bijaspur Bus-
stand on Bidar-Bangalore main road
bus bearing No.KA-35-F-32 being
driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed
dashed to the motorbike due to which
the deceased Mohd. Usman sustained
fatal injuries all over body and died?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
the compensation? If so, to what
extent and against whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to substantiate their case, claimant
No.5, the son of the deceased examined himself as PW.1
and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P7. On the other
hand, the respondent-KSRTC examined its driver as RW.1
and got marked documents at Exs.R1 to R5.
6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,
evidence and material on record has held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the KSRTC bus and fastened the liability on the KSRTC
and calculated the total compensation at Rs.18,14,232/-
under the following heads:
1. Towards Loss of estate Rs.16,29,232/-
2. Towards loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Towards funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
4. Towards transportation of Rs.10,000/-
dead body
5. Towards loss of love and Rs.50,000/-
affection
Total Rs.18,14,232/-
Out of which, Rs.15,000/- already paid to clamant
No.1 by the KSRTC has been deducted and thus, a total
compensation of Rs.17,99,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till realization has
been awarded in favour of the claimants.
7. Aggrieved by the liability being fastened and
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
the KSRTC has preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
KSRTC and the learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants.
9. Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel
for the appellant-KSRTC would contend that there is
contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the
motorbike, who is the deceased and would contend that
the liability fastened entirely upon the appellant needs to
be absolved. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, it is contended that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
10. Per contra, Sri. Chaitanya Kumar C.M., learned
counsel for the respondents/claimants would justify the
judgment and award of the Tribunal and contend that the
same does not call for any interference in the hands of this
Court.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and
having perused the material on record, the only point that
arises for consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal requires any interference?
12. A perusal of spot panchanama - Ex.P3 and MVI
report-Ex.P4 and the fact that the driver of the KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA-35-F-32 being charge sheeted for the
offence punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC R/w
Section 187 of M.V. Act clearly establish that the accident
occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending bus bearing No.KA-35/S-32.
13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, a perusal of the award reveals that Ex.P6-
Service Certificate and Ex.P7-Salary Certificate clearly
establish the fact that the deceased was Government
employee and was working as a peon in Tahasil Office and
the age of the deceased was 55 years and was earning
Rs.18,924/- per month. The Tribunal, taking into
consideration the salary as per the Salary Certificate and
applying the multiplier of 11 and deducting 1/3rd towards
the personal expenses of the deceased has rightly awarded
a compensation of Rs.16,29,232/- towards loss of
dependency, though the heading of the Tribunal shows
that it is towards loss of estate. Under the other heads
also, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of
Rs.17,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum,
which is just, fair and proper and does not call for any
interference.
14. For the reasons stated supra, the point raised
for consideration is answered in the negative.
15. In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
23.03.2016 passed in MVC No.247/2014 by the Tribunal is
hereby confirmed.
iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.
iv) Registry is directed to send back the Trial
Court records to the Tribunal.
v) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
