Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Kavitha Y on 16 June, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA.NO.8656/2016(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C, TUMAKURU DEPOT
ASHOKA ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY-572 101
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE KSRTC BUS
BEARING REG NO. KA-06-F-687)
REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF LAW OFFICER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KAVITHA .Y
W/O LATE KUMAR
AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS
2. GIRISHA S/O LATE KUMAR
AGED 6 YEARS, MINOR
REP. BY HIS N/G MOTHER
SMT. KAVITHA .Y-1ST RESPONDENT
3. YALLAMMA W/O LATE HUCHHARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
4. JAYAMMA D/O LATE HUCHHARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BAGUR GATE VILLAGE
N. MATHIGHATTA POST, NITTUR HOBLI
2
GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 216
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R2, MINOR REP. BY R1, R3-SERVED, R1 TO R3, LR'S OF
DECEASED R4)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.57/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
& SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.8,83,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/corporation
being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
08.08.2016 in MVC.No.57/2016 passed by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru.
2. Heard Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned advocate for
the appellant-corporation and Sri.Patel.D.Karegowda,
learned advocate for respondent No.1.
3. In the said proceedings the application
under Section 166 of MV Act is filed by the
dependents of the deceased Kumara son of
Huccharangaiah is allowed in part awarding the
compensation of Rs.8,83,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a.
4. The appellant-corporation has taken a
stand that in the claim petition the date of accident is
mentioned as 16.12.2015. However, the complaint
reveals that alleged accident has taken place on
17.12.2015. It is further case of the prosecution that
on 16.12.2015 the vehicle mentioned in the complaint
was not plying in the said route at all as such it is a
false case filed against the appellant-corporation only
to make unlawful gain by claiming compensation.
5. The Tribunal has considered the evidence
on record. There is no dispute over the fact that
KSRTC driver is charge sheeted on the basis of the
complaint filed on 17.12.2015. It appears from the
records that the date of accident is erroneously
mentioned as 16.12.2015 in the claim petition though
the accident has taken place on 17.12.2015. The
charge sheet would reveal that KSRTC bus referred in
the claim petition is involved in the accident and on
account of the accident Kumara son of Hucchrangaiah
died. The Tribunal has also considered the oral and
documentary evidence on record to hold that KSRTC
bus was involved in the accident and on account of
accident Kumara died.
6. It is the further contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the KSRTC that on 16.12.2015
the deceased was admitted in the hospital for taking
some treatment for his lever ailment. He has also
produced medical records of Shridevi Institute of
Medical Sciences & Research Hospital, Tumakuru.
Based on these records, he would submit that on
16.12.2015 deceased was admitted to the hospital
and without the permission of the hospital he has
stepped out of the hospital. It is also the contention
that on 17.12.2015 from the hospital record would
reveal that Kumara met with an accident and was hit
by unknown vehicle. Referring to these documents,
learned counsel for the appellant-corporation would
contend that the bus in question is not involved in the
accident and as such the corporation is not liable to
pay the compensation.
7. This Court has considered the contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-
corporation and has looked into the evidence on
record. Based on charge sheet and oral evidence, this
Court is of the opinion that accident has taken place
as the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-06-F-
687 ran over on Kumara son of Huccharangaiah. The
finding of the Tribunal is based on the charge sheet
filed by the police after the investigation pursuant to
the complaint lodged on 17.12.2015. The accident has
taken place on 17.12.2015 at 5.00 p.m., and the
complaint is lodged on the same day at 9.00 p.m., by
the sister of the deceased, who is the eye-witness to
the accident and she has given the evidence. Based
on oral and documentary evidence are placed on
record and the Tribunal has concluded that driver of
KSRTC bus is responsible for accidental death of
Kumara son of Huccharangaiah. Under these
circumstances, this Court is not inclined to take a
different view to hold that bus in question is not
involved in the accident.
8. As far as calculation, the Court has
considered the evidence and has awarded
Rs.8,83,000/- to the dependents of the deceased
while awarding the compensation.
9. The Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/- p.m. as
income of the deceased. The appellant-corporation
has contended that income assessed by the Tribunal is
on higher side. As per the chart prepared by
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, in the
absence of any proof, the notional income of the
deceased is to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court is
not inclined to interfere to accept the contention of
KSRTC that the income is on higher side. There are no
grounds to interfere with the award under the other
heads. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the
jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
