Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Shajadabi And Ors on 8 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
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.202715/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, Vijayapur Division,
Vijayapur, Now represented through its
Chief Law Officer, NEKRTC,
Central Offices, Sarige Sadana,
Kalaburagi-585 102.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, Advocate)
AND:
1. Shajadabi W/o Hashimsab Jumanal,
Age: 62 years, Occ: Nil,
2. Noorjahan W/o Lalasab Jumanal,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Household work,
3. Mohahammed Ujaif S/o Lalasab Jumanal,
Age: 07 years, Minor.
2
4. Mohammed Yusuf S/o Lalasab Jumanal,
Age: 05 years Minor,
Respondents 3 and 4 herein minor,
U/G of respondent No.2 herein,
All respondents herein are
R/o Kudagi, Tq: Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapur-586203.
... Respondents
(Sri. Sanganabasava B. Patil, Advocate for R1 & R2;
R3 & R4 are minors U/G of R2)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the
records in MVC No.188/2017, dated 26.04.2019, by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.XIII, Vijayapur at
Vijayapur and allow the appeal by setting aside the
impugned judgment and award in MVC No.188/2017,
dated 26.04.2019, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
No.XIII, vijayapur at Vijayapur.
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is
taken up for final disposal.
2. The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State
Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') has
preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act'), assailing the
judgment and award dated 26.04.2019 passed in MVC
No.188/2017 by the IV Additional District Judge &
Member, MACT-13, Vijayapura (for short 'the Tribunal')
challenging the liability fastened on the appellant and the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The claimants filed a petition before the
Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of death of
one Janab Lalasab, contending that on 07.01.2017, when
the deceased being a pillion rider was proceeding along
with one Maheboob Inamdar-the rider from Malaghan
towards Malaghan Tanda on a motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-29/Q-7724 and reached near Malaghan village,
the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-28/F-1587 came from
opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against the motorcycle which was on the extreme left side
of the road and due to the impact of the accident, the said
Lalasab being a pillion rider has suffered multiple grievous
injuries and died on the spot. The deceased Lalasab was
aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month and the claimants being the mother, wife and
children of the deceased were solely depending on the
income of the deceased and he was the only breadwinner
of the family.
4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the
Tribunal, the KSRTC has appeared and filed its objection
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
contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the
motorcycle and sought that the liability for contributory
negligence should be fastened upon the rider of the
motorcycle.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioners prove that on
07.01.2017 at about 13.00 hours,
when the deceased was traveling on
motorcycle bearing No.KA-29/Q-*7724
as pillion rider, near Malaghan village,
on Malaghan-Malaghan Tanda road, at
that time the driver of KSRTC Bus
bearing Reg.No.KA-28/F-1587 came
from opposite direction in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle, due to which deceased
sustained injuries and died on the spot
due to accidental injuries?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to
what extent?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to substantiate their case, claimant
No.2-Noorjahan, the wife of the deceased examined
herself as PW.1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3
and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P7. On the other
hand, the respondent-KSRTC got examined its driver as
RW.1 and no documents were marked.
7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,
evidence and material on record 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 awarded a compensation of Rs.18,83,600/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
petition till realization under the following heads:
1. Loss of income and Rs.17,13,600/-
future prospects
2. Spousal consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Parental consortium Rs.45,000/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.18,83,600/-
8. Being aggrieved by fastening of the liability
and the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the KSRTC has preferred the present appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
KSRTC and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.
10. Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, learned counsel
for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal has
wrongly fastened the liability on the KSRTC without
considering that there was contributory negligence on the
part of the rider of the motorcycle. It is further contended
that the Tribunal ought to have held that there is
contributory negligence to the extent of 90% on the part
of rider of the motorcycle and 10% on the KSRTC bus.
Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is
contended that the compensation awarded towards loss of
dependency and the conventional head is on the higher
side and sought for reduction and reassessment of the
compensation.
11. Per contra, Sri. Sanganabasava B. Patil,
learned counsel for the claimants would justify the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, contending
that considering the pleadings and the material on record,
the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the
deceased succumbed to the injuries due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus and the
driver of the KSRTC bus was charge sheeted for the
offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC
and Section 187 of the M.V. Act. It is also contended that
looking into the material, Exs.P3 to P7 would substantiate
that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the
KSRTC bus. Insofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, it is contended that the Tribunal, taking into
consideration the Lok-Adalat guidelines has rightly
awarded fair, just and proper compensation which does
not require any interference by this Court.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and 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?
13. Ex.P3 is the spot panchanama, Ex.P4 is the
inquest panchanama, Ex.P5 is the P.M. report, Ex.P6 is the
M.V. report and Ex.P7 is the charge sheet. A perusal of
Exs.P3 to P7 would clearly establish the fact that the
accident occurred purely due to the rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of the bus, who drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the motorcycle, due to which the accident occurred and
the pillion rider-Lalasab succumbed to the injuries. PW.2
and PW.3 examined on behalf of the claimants, who are
the eye witnesses to the said accident clearly narrate the
fact that the motorcycle was on the left side of the road
and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. The
pleadings, evidence and material on record produced by
the claimants clearly establishes the fact that there is no
contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the
motorcycle as contended by the KSRTC and it is due to the
sole negligence and driving of the KSRTC bus which has
caused the accident. The Tribunal, considering the manner
in which the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the vehicle has
rightly fastened the liability upon the KSRTC. Thus, the
contention of the insurance company that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the
motorcycle does not appraise the conscious of this Court.
Thus, fastening of liability on the KSRTC by the Tribunal is
just and proper and does not call for any interference.
14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per
month as per the Lok-Adalat guidelines, as the claimants
have failed to produce any document to the effect that the
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Taking the
notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month, adding 40%
towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards personal
expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 17
considering the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.17,13,600/- towards loss of income
and future prospects. Further, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,45,000/- towards spousal and parental consortium
respectively and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
15. Looking into the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal, even if this Court can reassess the
compensation as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020
SC 3076 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and
proper compensation which does not call for any
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point raised for
consideration is answered in the negative.
16. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
26.04.2019 passed in MVC No.188/2017 by the
Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
iii) The appellant-KSRTC is directed to pay the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and
deposit the same with updated interest within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.
iv) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.
v) Registry is directed to send back the Trial
Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.
vi) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
