The Managing Director vs Smt. Savita W/O Basappa Halamani
2022 Latest Caselaw 973 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

               M.F.A. No.101104/2021 (MV, D)


BETWEEN

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.W.K.S.R.T.C, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD,
REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY,
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.      SMT. SAVITA W/O BASAPPA HALAMANI,
        AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
        R/O. CHINCHAKHANDI B. K.,
        TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE 587313.

2.      KUMAR SHIVAKUMAR S/O.BASAPPA HALAMANI,
        AGE. 15 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
        R/O. CHINCHAKHANDI B K,
        TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE 587313.

3.      KUMAR SHASHIKANT S/O BASAPPA HALAMANI,
        AGE. 13 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
        R/O. CHINCHAKHANDI B K,
        TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE- 587313.
                              2




4.   SMT KAMALAWWA W/O.VENKAPPA HALAMANI,
     AGE-60 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
     R/O.CHINCHAKHANDI B.K.,
     TAL-MUDHOL, DIST-BAGALKOTE-587 313.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 4-SERVED)

     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2021
PASSED IN MVC.NO.132/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
MOTOR    ACCIDENT     CLAIMS    TRIBUNAL-XIV, MUDHOL,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.28,37,512/- WITH INTEREST
AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSITING OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

The owner of the offending bus bearing registration

No.KA-29/F-1187 has referred this appeal challenging the

Judgment and Award dated 22.04.2021 passed by the

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal XIV, Mudhol (for

short, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C.No.132/2020.

2. The parties to this appeal are referred to by

their rankings assigned before the Tribunal for the purpose

of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for

the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

The deceased-Basappa Halemani, who was returning

from Saundatti Yallamma Temple on 10.01.2020 was

walking towards his village and at about 5.45 p.m. when he

reached near Jogalabhavi cross, the offending bus bearing

No.KA-29/F-1187 which came from Yallammanagudda

dashed against the deceased who was a pedestrian from

his backside. In the said accident the deceased-Basappa

Halemani had sustained grievous injuries and he had

succumbed on the spot. The deceased was working in

Ranna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane, Ranna Nagar,

Timmapur and getting salary of `25,000/- per month, apart

from his income from agriculture.

4. Claimants who are the wife, children and mother of

the deceased had filed a claim petition under Section 166

of the M.V.Act in MVC No.132/2020 claiming compensation

of `1,30,00,000/- with interest from the respondent-owner

of the offending bus. The Tribunal had partly allowed the

said claim petition and awarded a compensation of

`28,37,512/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

and directed the respondent-owner to pay the same. Being

aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the

respondent-owner of the vehicle is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

deceased was also negligence as he was found walking in

the middle of the road and therefore contributory

negligence ought to have been attributed even on the

deceased by the Tribunal. He submits that the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also on the higher

side. He further submits that the rate of interest awarded

by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is also on the higher side.

The claimants who have been served are un-represented in

this appeal.

6. I have carefully appreciated the arguments

addressed on behalf of the appellant-insurer and also

perused the material available on record.

7. The accident in question is not in dispute so also

the fact that deceased had expired having regard to the

injuries caused to him in the said accident. The

involvement of the offending bus in the said accident is also

not in dispute. Though, the learned counsel for the

appellant has contended that the Tribunal ought to have

attributed contributory negligence on the deceased who

was a pedestrian, I am of the considered view that the said

submission is liable to be rejected for the reason that the

charge sheet has been filed by the police after investigation

as against the driver of the offending bus for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of

IPC. Though, the owner of the offending bus has examined

the driver of the bus to prove contributory negligence, this

Court cannot lose sight of the fact that four persons had

died in the accident in question and the deceased was

admittedly a pedestrian and therefore having regard to the

fact that totally four persons were moved to death, the

Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver

of the bus alone had caused the accident in question and it

is only because of his negligence, the accident had taken

place. In my considered view, there is no scope for

interference with regard to the said finding recorded by the

Tribunal.

8. Insofar as the compensation amount awarded by

the Tribunal is concerned, considering the fact that the

deceased was a permanent employee of a Sugar Factory,

taking into consideration the salaried income of the

deceased, the Tribunal by following the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others

vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in

(2009) 6 SCC 121 and also in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,

reported in (2017) 6 SCC 680, has awarded just and proper

compensation to the claimants. I am of the view that there

is no scope for interference even in respect of the

compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal to the

claimants which is just and proper. However, the Tribunal

has erred in awarding the interest on the compensation

amount to the claimants at 9% per annum from the date of

petition till realization. In my considered view, the Tribunal

ought to have been awarded interest at the rate of 6% per

annum which is rate of interest consistently awarded by

this Court in the motor vehicle accident cases. Therefore,

the Miscellaneous First Appeal is partly allowed.

9. The impugned Judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal is modified only to the extent of the rate of

interest awarded on the compensation by the Tribunal. It is

held that the claimants are entitled for interest on the

compensation amount at the rate of 6% per annum instead

of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Amount in deposit in this appeal is directed to be

transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of disbursement.

The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it relates

to quantum, liability, apportionment, disbursement and

deposit, etc., remain unaltered.

Sd/-

Ckk /AC                                   JUDGE