Karnataka High Court

The North West Karnataka State ... vs Smt. Mallavva W/O Laxman Terani on 4 February, 2022

Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                     DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                M.F.A.NO.103372 OF 2019 (MV)
                           C/W
                M.F.A.NO.103761 OF 2018 (MV)

IN M.F.A.NO.103372 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN

1.      SMT.MALLAVVA W/O LAXMAN TERANI
        AGE.41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
        R/O DURGADEVI GALLI, MANNIKERI
        TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI

2.      SHRI. RAMA S/O YALLAPPA TERANI
        AGE.76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE NOW NIL
        R/O DURGADEVI GALLI, MANNIKERI
        TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI

3.      SMT. GANGAWWA W/O RAMA TERANI
        AGE.71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
        R/O DURGADEVI GALLI, MANNIKERI
        TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                               ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK.A.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE NORTH-WEST KARNATAKA
STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                            2



THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.
                                        ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.315/2018 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.9,19,000/-, ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.103761 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN

THE NORTH-WEST KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT.MALLAVVA W/O LAXMAN TERANI AGE.40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O DURGADEVI GALLI, MANNIKERI TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

2. SHRI. RAMA S/O YALLAPPA TERANI AGE.75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE NOW NIL R/O DURGADEVI GALLI, MANNIKERI TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

3. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O RAMA TERANI AGE.70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O DURGADEVI GALLI, MANNIKERI TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI590001.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ASHOK.A.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGEMENT

The accident involved two vehicles, one KSRTC

bus bearing Reg.No.KA-22-F-1710 and another bike

bearing Reg.No.KA-22-EH-0934, which took place on

15.01.2018, resulted in the death of Bharma S/o Laxman

Terani.

2. The petitioners claiming to be the dependants

of said Bharma S/o Laxman Terani filed a petition in MVC

No.315/2018, on the file of VI Addl. District and Sessions

Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal'), seeking compensation

against the North West Karnataka State Transport

Corporation-owner of the bus involved in the accident. The

Tribunal did not agree with the claim of the claimants in

full. However, the petition is partly allowed awarding

compensation of Rs.9,19,000/- along with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the

realization.

3. The compensation is awarded in the ratio of

50:25:25 to the wife, father and mother of the deceased

respectively. The aforementioned judgment and award

dated 20.06.2018 are not acceptable to both the claimants

as well as the respondent corporation. Thus, the

respondent corporation has filed an appeal in MFA

No.103761/2018 seeking reduction of compensation and

claimants have filed MFA No.103372/2019 for

enhancement.

4. Both the cases are listed together and heard

for final disposal.

5. Learned counsel, Sri S.C.Bhuti appearing for

the respondent-corporation in support of his appeal would

submit that the accident in question occurred on account

of rash and negligent act of the deceased, who was riding

the bike and he being responsible for the accident, liability

could not have been fastened on the appellant-

corporation. Alternatively, it is also urged by Mr Bhuti that

the accident took place in the middle of the road and the

deceased was not wearing the helmet, thereby violating

the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and according to

him, it is a case of contributory negligence. Thus, he

would urge to reduce the burden of compensation to the

extent of the contribution of the deceased in the accident.

6. Even elaborating his contention relating to the

quantum of compensation, it is urged that the

compensation awarded is on the higher side. The learned

counsel for the appellant corporation inviting the attention

of the Court to the compensation awarded under the

various heads would urge that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is without evidence.

7. The learned counsel for the claimants-

appellants in M.F.A No.103372/2019 in support of his

grounds urged in the appeal memo would urge that the

compensation awarded is on the lower side. The Tribunal

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

month. In the absence of proof relating to the actual

income, the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal

Service Authority should have been the basis for

calculating the notional income. Given the fact that the

accident took place in the year 2018, Rs.11,750/- should

have been taken as the notional income. It is further

urged that since the deceased was aged 22 years, 40% of

the assessed income should have been added towards

future prospects. It is also urged that no compensation is

awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and

prayed for enhancement of compensation.

8. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the

claimants that a charge sheet is filed against the driver of

the bus and no complaint is filed against the rider of the

bike and based on the materials on record, the Tribunal

concluded that the accident in question has occurred on

account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus.

Based on these submissions it is urged by the claimants

that there is no contributory negligence as contended by

the appellant-corporation.

9. This Court has considered the contention

raised at the bar and perused the materials on record.

10. As far as contention relating to contributory

negligence is concerned, it is noticed that the Tribunal has

fastened liability on the appellant corporation basing its

reasoning based on the charge sheet filed by the police as

well as the oral evidence placed on record. It is also

noticed that the driver of the bus has not lodged any

complaint against the rider of the bike involved in the

accident. In the examination-in-chief, the driver of the bus

has tried to offer an explanation for not lodging the

complaint. It is stated by him that the police refused to

receive the complaint lodged by him. This explanation is

not appealing. Had the accident occurred on account of

rash and negligent act of the rider of the bike, the driver of

the bus would have ensured that the police would receive

the complaint and if there was a refusal to receive the

complaint, there were other legal remedies available to the

driver to ensure that the complaint is registered. However,

no such recourse is taken by the driver of the bus. The

police after investigation filed a charge sheet accusing the

driver of the bus as the person responsible for the

accident. The contention that the rider of the bike was

under influence of alcohol is not established. Moreover,

the further contention that the rider of the bike was not

wearing headgear and as such, he should also be held

responsible for the death is not a valid contention to hold

that the rider of the bike is responsible for the accident.

Whether the rider of the bike would have survived if he

had worn headgear is a speculative question, which this

Court cannot answer with precision. Under these

circumstances, from the overall perspective of materials

available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the

finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was

solely responsible for the accident, does not call for any

interference.

11. Now the point for consideration is whether the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive or

inadequate?

12. There is no denial of the fact that the income

proof is not produced before the Tribunal. Under these

circumstances, the Court has to assess the notional

income with reference to the chart prepared by the

Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The accident is of

the year 2018. Notional income would be Rs.11,750.00.

The deceased was aged 22 years. 40% escalation to the

assessed notional income is to be provided to assess the

future prospects. 50% of the income is to be deducted

towards the personal expenditure of the deceased as he

was a bachelor. The multiplier of 18 adopted by the

Tribunal is proper and correct. Hence, the dependency

would be as under;

Rs.11,750/- (income per month) + Rs.4,700.00 (40%

towards future income) - Rs.8,225.00 (50% deduction

towards personal expenditure) =Rs.8,225 x 12 (months) x

18 (multiplier) =Rs.17,76,600.00.

13. Now the next question i.e., required to

determine is whether the compensation payable under the

conventional heads is proper or not. The Tribunal has

awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses which are in tune

with the law laid down in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others1,

Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded under the head of loss of

consortium. The claim petition is filed by the mother and

grandparents of the deceased. Under these circumstances,

the award of Rs.40,000/- to the mother under the head of

AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157.

filial consortium is also as per the law. Hence, the

compensation payable would be as under;

Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency 17,76,600.00

Rs.11,750/- (income per month) + Rs.4,700.00 (40% towards future income) - Rs.8,225.00 (50% deduction towards personal expenditure) =Rs.8,225 x 12 (months) x 18 (multiplier) = Rs.17,76,600.00.

Loss of filial consortium to 40,000.00 mother (Rs.40,000.00) Loss of estate and funeral 30,000.00 expenses.

Total 18,46,600.00

14. It is also noticed from the judgment of the

Tribunal that Rs.15,000/- is deducted towards

compensation already paid by the respondent corporation.

Accordingly, Rs.15,000/- is to be deducted in the

compensation determined by this Court (Rs.18,46,600.00-

Rs.15,000.00=Rs.18,31,600.00).

15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.18,31,600.00 as against

Rs.9,19,000/-awarded by the Tribunal.

16. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate