Smt Vaishali And Ors vs The Managing Director Of Msrtc
2022 Latest Caselaw 1922 Kant

                             1



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 8TH 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.201017/2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1.     Smt. Vaishali W/o Sayaji Jadhav,
       Age: 36 years, Occ: Household,
2.     Prashant S/o Sayaji Jadhav,
       Age: 18 years, Occ: Student,
3.     Rajalaxmi D/o Sayaji Jadhav,
       Age: 9 years, Occ: Nil,
       All are R/o: Chadachan,
       Tq: Indi, Dist: Vijayapura-586211.
      Appellant No.3 is minor R/by her mother
      As natural guardian appellant No.1.
                                             ... Appellants
(By Sri. Koujalagi Chandrakanth Laxman, Advocate)
AND:

The Managing Director of MSRTC,
R/by Divisional Manager,
MSRTC Division Office, Sangli-416416.
(Maharashtra State)
                                            ... Respondent
(By Sri. Rahu.R.Asture, Advocate)
                              2



       This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the
records.    To modify the judgment and award dated
21.10.2019 passed in MVC No.2251/2014 on the file of the
Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XII Vijayapura at
Vijayapura. And allow this appeal to grant the
compensation amount by rs.41,85,500/- only as claimed
by the appellants before this court. In the interest of
justice and equity etc.,

      This appeal coming on for orders            this   day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

The present appeal is preferred by the claimants

assailing the judgment and award dated 21.10.2019,

passed in MVC.No.2251/2014, by the III Additional

Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

No.XII (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for

short) seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimants filed petition under Section

163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for

short) claiming compensation of Rs.45,50,000/- on

account of death of one Sayaji son of Sambaji Jadhav

who died in a fatal road traffic accident that occurred

on 09.06.2014, while the deceased was proceeding on

his motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-10/BD-

3375 from Malewadi to Dhondewadi while he was near

the land of Appa Maruti Metakare, MSRTC bus bearing

registration No.MH-20/BL-0092 came in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle,

due to which the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of

accident and was aged about 35 years, earning a sum

of Rs.3,300/- per month. The claimants are the wife

and children of the deceased and the deceased was

the only sole bread winner of the family and the entire

family was depending upon the income of the

deceased.

3. In pursuance to the notice issued by the

Tribunal, the respondents appeared and filed their

written statement and contended that the accident did

not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of

the bus driver, but it was due to the negligence on the

part of rider of the motorcycle, who lost control and

dashed against the bus. Therefore, it s contended

that the MSRTC is not liable to pay the compensation.

4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,

framed the following:

ISSUES

1. Whether petitioners prove that the Sayaji S/o Sambaji Jadhav @ Yadhav died in the Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 09.06.2014 at about 5.45 hours, on Bhivaghat to Metakarwadi road, near the land of Appa Maruti Metakare as alleged?

2. Whether this tribunal has got territorial jurisdiction to try this petition?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?

4. What order or award?

5. The claimants, in order to substantiate

their claim, examined claimant No.1/wife of the

deceased as PW.1 and got marked documents at

Exs.P-1 to P-3. On the other hand, the driver of the

MSRTC bus was examined as RW.1 and no documents

were marked on behalf of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,

evidence and the material on record held that the

accident occurred on 09.06.2014 due to rash and

negligent driving of the MSRTC bus, due to which the

deceased Sayaji son of Sambaji Jadhav succumbed to

the injuries and awarded compensation as per the

Schedule-II of the Act and awarded compensation of

Rs.3,64,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of the claim petition till the date

of realization. Being dissatisfied with the award of

compensation by the Tribunal, the claimants are in

appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants and learned counsel for the

respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants

contended that the Tribunal has taken note of the

earning of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month

without considering the fact that the deceased was

earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and even if

the provisions invoking Section 163-A read with

structure formula has found that insofar as Schedule

II of the Act is concerned, the annual income of the

deceased has to be taken at Rs.40,000/- per month.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-

MSRTC would contend that the impugned judgment

and award regarding the specific claim put forth by

the appellants that the actual income of the deceased

is Rs.3,300/-, but the Tribunal considered the income

of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month has awarded

Rs.36,000/-as annual income of the deceased is just

and proper. Thus, he would contend that the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not

warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

10. Having given out anxious consideration to

the rival contentions and having perused the material

on record, the only point that arises for our

consideration is:

"Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires any interference?"

11. It is undoubtedly true that the claimants

have contended in the petition that the deceased was

earning Rs.3,300/- per month which would amount to

annual income of the deceased at Rs.39,600/-. The

Tribunal has taken the annual income of the deceased

at Rs.36,000/-. The maximum statutory limit

provided under Section 163-A of the Act is

Rs.40,000/- per annum and by invoking the provisions

of Section 163-A read with structure formula found in

Schedule II of the Act and having regard to the

undisputed fact that the claim petition is of the year

2014 and the accident is also of the year 2014. Thus,

we deem it proper to take the annual income of the

deceased at Rs.40,000/- and taking the annual

income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- and deducting

1/3rd towards the personal expenses and applying the

multiplier 15 considering the age of the deceased the

claimants would be entitled (Rs.40,000/- - 1/3 i.e.,

Rs.13,333) = to Rs.26,607/- and applying the

multiplier 15, the amount of compensation to the

claimants would come to Rs.4,00,005/-. The Tribunal

has already awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,500/- and

(thus deducting 4,00,005 - Less 3,60,000/-), the

claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,005/- . Thus,

the claimants are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.40,005/- with interest at the rate

of 6% per annum. Accordingly, the point framed for

consideration is answered in the affirmative in favour

of the claimant. In view of the aforesaid discussion,

we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated

21.10.2019 in MVC.No.2251/2014 on the

file of the Tribunal is hereby modified. The

appellants are entitled for enhanced

compensation of Rs.40,005/- with interest

at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

of the claim petition till realization.

(iii) The MSRTC is directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation amount within 12

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this order.

(iv) The apportionment, deposit and release of

the compensation amount is as per the

order of the Tribunal.

(v) The registry is directed to transmit the trial

Court record forthwith.

(vi) No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

S*