Karnataka High Court
Mr. Sheshappa K. M vs Ksrtc on 29 July, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA.NO.6311/2017(MV)
BETWEEN:
MR. SHESHAPPA K.M
H/O LATE SAROJINI
S/O K. MONAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT KOYANADU HOUSE
SAMPAJE POST, KOYANADU VILLAGE
MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ARKULA BAILU
ARKULA VILLAGE, FARANGIPETE POST
MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT
PIN-575 007
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY .G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION
PUTTUR TALUK
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
PIN-574 201
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED: 19.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1054/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, & MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K. MANGALORE,
2
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Section 173(1) of the MV
Act seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in
MVC No.1054/2015 on the file of the III Additional District
Judge and MACT-IV, D.K., Mangalore dated 19.05.2016.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the
Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that:
On 19.05.2015 at about 9.45 a.m. the deceased
Sarojini and the claimant were travelling in KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA-19F-3046 from Puttur to
Farangipete. When the deceased was getting down from
the bus in Farangipete, the driver moved the bus suddenly
and thereby the deceased was thrown out of the bus and
sustained fatal injuries and succumbed because of these
injuries. It is alleged that the deceased was earning
Rs.8,000/- p.m., by working as a beedi roller and the
claimant being the husband is a dependent in both the
ways and hence, he has filed claim petition claiming the
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate
of 9% p.a. thereon.
4. The Corporation appeared and contested the
matter by denying the actionable negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending bus. The Corporation has also
taken all other statutory defence and prayed for dismissal
of the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal after assessing the oral and
documentary evidence has granted the total compensation
of Rs.6,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being
dissatisfied with this quantum of award, the claimant has
come up with this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the claimant-
appellant and respondent-Corporation. Perused the
records.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant
would contend that the income of the deceased was taken
on lower side and the consortium was also awarded on
lower side. Further, he would also contend that the future
prospects were also not added. Hence, he would seek for
enhancement of the compensation.
8. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation would support the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal.
9. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is evident that the deceased while travelling in
KSRTC bus suffered fatal injuries and succumbed because
of these injuries. The Tribunal has given the finding that
the accident is because of the actionable negligence on the
part of the driver of the offending bus. This finding is not
at all challenged by the respondent-Corporation.
10. This Court is consistently taking the notional
income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.9,000/- p.m.,
pertaining to the accidents occurred in the year 2015.
However, the petition pleading itself disclose that the
deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m., and restricted the
income to Rs.8,000/- p.m. Under such circumstances, in
view of the claim of the claimants, the income of the
deceased is required to be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m.,
though the notional income consistently taken by this
Court is Rs.9,000/- p.m.
11. The Tribunal has not considered the loss of
future prospects. In view of the decision of the National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering the
age of the deceased as 40 years, 25% is required to be
added towards future prospects. In that event, the
monthly income would be Rs.10,000/-p.m.(Rs.8,000/- X
25%). Further 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased and hence, she would
have contributed the remaining 2/3rd towards the welfare
of the family. Considering the age of the deceased as 40
years, multiplier 15 is applicable. Hence, the loss of
dependency would works out to Rs.10,000 X 12 X 15 X 2/3
= Rs.12,00,000/-.
12. Further the claimant is the husband of the
deceased. He is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of
loss of consortium. Further under the head of loss of
estate as well as under the head of funeral expenses he is
entitled for Rs.15,000/- each. Hence, the appellant-
claimant would be entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.12,70,000/- as under:
Sl.
Particulars Amount
No.
1 Loss of Dependency Rs.12,00,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
Total compensation Rs.12,70,000/-
Award of Tribunal Rs.6,35,000
Enhanced
Rs.6,35,000/-
compensation
13. Considering these facts and circumstances, the
appeal needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The judgment and award dated 19.05.2016
passed by the III Addl. District Judge &
MACT-IV, D.K., Mangalore in MVC
No.1054/2015 is modified.
iii. The appellant-claimant is held entitled for
total compensation of Rs.12,70,000/- as
against Rs.6,35,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
iv. The enhanced compensation of
Rs.6,35,000/- (Rs.12,70,000 -Rs.6,35,000)
shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till its realisation.
v. Respondent-Corporation is directed to
deposit the entire enhanced compensation
with accrued interest within a period of 6
weeks from today.
vi. The deposit and disbursement shall be as per
the order of the Tribunal.
In view of the order dated 10.06.2019, the claimant-
appellant is not entitled for any interest for the delayed
period of 337 days.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
