The Managing Director vs Chandrasha And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4220 Kant

                              1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                    KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201204/2021

BETWEEN:

The Managing Director,
Central Office NEKRTC,
The appellant is represented by
Its Chief Law Officer, Central Office,
Sarige Sadana, Kalaburagi.
                                             .... Appellant

(By Sri Sudhirsing R.Vijapur, Advocate)


AND:

1.    Chandrasha S/o Mallappa Hangargi,
      Age. 27 years, Occ. Agri and coolie,

2.    Sharanabassu s/o Mallappa Hangargi,
      Age 25 years, Occ : Agriculture,

      Both are R/o village Sharanasirasagi,
      Tq. and Dist : Kalaburagi 585106.
                                           ... Respondents

(By Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocate)

      This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act praying to allow the
                                  2




above appeal and consequently be pleased to set aside the
judgment and award dated 06.05.2021 passed by the
learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT at
Kalaburagi in MVC No.182/2020 in the interest of justice
and equity.

      This appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, the
court delivered the following:-

                         JUDGMENT

Though this matter is listed for orders on

interlocutory application, with the consent of learned

counsel for the appellant as well as respondents the matter

is taken up for final hearing.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment

and award dated 06.05.2021 passed in MVC No.182/2020

on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi.

The claim petition is filed by sons of the deceased

Yallamma W/o Mallappa Hangargi. The incident in question

is said to have taken place on 20.10.2019 at about 5.30

p.m.. Yellamma was returning home after finishing her

work when she reached near the house of Basavaraj

Revoor situated at Sharanasirasagi Village on Kalaburagi

Afzalpur main road.

3. It is the contention of the respondents that the

KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-34/F-1310 came in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against Yellamma. On

account of the accident, Yellamma sustained injuries and

she was shifted to United Hospital, Kalaburagi for

treatment. However, Yellamma did not survive and she

succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

4. On account of this accidental death, the sons

of Yellamma have filed claim petition contending that

Yellamma was a coolie having income of `12,000/- and

they being dependents are entitled to claim compensation

from the respondents-corporation before the Tribunal.

5. The respondent-corporation pursuant to the

notice appeared and contested the matter and filed

statement of objection. The allegation of negligence

leveled against the driver of the bus was denied and it was

the contention of the respondent-corporation that

Yellamma herself was solely responsible for the accident.

6. Based on the pleadings the trial court has

framed an issue relating to the negligence and the

claimants have led their evidence in respect of their claim.

There is no dispute of over the fact that the charge sheet

is leveled against the driver of the bus. Though the

respondent-corporation has taken a stand that the driver

of the bus was not in negligent and the accident has taken

place on account of the negligence of the deceased

Yellamma, for the best reasons known to them, the driver

of the bus is not examined and there is no material is

placed on record to rebut the inference arising from the

charge sheet leveled against the driver of the bus. Under

the circumstances, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion

that the driver of the bus is solely responsible for the

accident. Thus contention relating to contributory

negligence is overruled by the Tribunal. The reasons are

supported by evidence. Hence there is no ground to

interfere on the said finding.

7. As far as the quantum of compensation is

concerned the Tribunal has assessed the income of the

deceased at `13,250/- per month, though the claimants

made a claim that the deceased earning `12,000/- per

month at the time of accident. However, the Tribunal while

assessing the compensation has taken the income of the

deceased at `13,250/- per month. This figure is arrived at

based on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority where the income is assessed where

there is no proof relating to the actual income of the

deceased.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondents in support of the judgment and award passed

by the reference Court would submit that the act being the

beneficial legislation the Tribunal is justified in taking

higher income than what has been claimed by the

claimants,.

9. There is no dispute relating to the fact that

multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is inconsonance with the

ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others v.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in

ILR 2009 SC 310 4 and as far as deduction of 1/3rd made

by the Tribunal to calculate the dependency, same is as

per the ratio laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma

referred to supra and the compensation under the other

conventional heads is also in tune with the ratio laid down

in the case of Magma General Insurance Company v.

Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1546.

10. Under these circumstances, this court is of the

considered of the opinion that there is no reason to

interfere with the quantum of compensation determined by

the Tribunal though Tribunal has taken income of the

deceased at `13,250/- per month when claimants have

claimed `12,000=00 per month. Difference of `1,250/- per

month is not a huge amount. Moreover the income

assessed by the Tribunal is based on the chart prepared by

legal services authority, where there is no proof relating to

income. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

11. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to

the Tribunal and same shall be released after due

identification in terms of the judgment passed by the

Tribunal.

I.A.1/2022 does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sn