Karnataka High Court
Nagaraju vs The Managing Director on 14 March, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.4703/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. NAGARAJU
S/O SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2. NAGENDRA
W/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O AMBEDKAR NAGARA
SATHANURU ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.M.RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
C.B.E DIVISION 37, METTUPALAYAM ROAD
COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU-641001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B. BOPANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYNG TO
ALLOW BY SETTING ASIDE OR MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
2
AWARD DATED 24.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.301/2016
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND
ADDL.MACT, CHANNAPATTANA AND AWARD THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for both the parties the same is
taken up for final disposal.
2. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted
for the death of one Narendra, the son of petitioner No.1 and
brother of petitioner No.2 in a motor vehicle accident,
petitioners have come up with this appeal seeking
enhancement.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
4. Facts: Petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner
No.2 is the brother of the deceased Narendra. On 02.05.2016
at about 10.30 p.m deceased Narendra along with one Ashok
Kumar, (in respect of whose death MVC.300/2016 is filed)
were proceeding on motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 02
EF 2693. When they were in front of KEB office, B.M.Road,
Channapatna, the driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing registration
No.TN-38-N-2660 (hereinafter referred to as offending
vehicle) plying from Bengaluru side towards Mysuru side came
in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the motor
cycle. As a result of the accident, both Narendra and Ashok
Kumar fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot.
4.1 Deceased Narendra was aged 22 years and was
working as Maison. He was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m.
Petitioners were dependent on his income. Respondent being
the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay
the compensation.
5. Defence of respondent: Respondent has filed
written statement denying that accident occurred due to the
rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle. In fact accident occurred on account of negligent
driving by the rider of the motor cycle. Even under no fault
liability, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The
police without conducting proper investigation and only on the
ground that the driver of the bigger vehicle is at fault have
filed the charge sheet.
5.1 The respondent has also denied the age,
avocation, income, nature of the injury sustained, cause of
death and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Since in the said accident, two deaths have
occurred and in respect of another person i.e., Ashok Kumar
MVC.300/2016 was filed by his dependents, a common
enquiry is held wherein on behalf of the petitioners, two
witnesses are examined i.e., PWs-1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to 15 are
marked.
7. On behalf of respondent, RW-1 is examined and
Ex.R1 consisting of two photographs and R1(a) CD are
marked.
8. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.9,77,200/- with interest at 6%
p.a. as detailed below:
Amount
Heads
in Rs.
Loss of dependency 9,07,200
Transportation of the dead body and 15,000
funeral expenses
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of love and affection 40,000
TOTAL 9,77,200
9. Respondent has not challenged the impugned
judgment and award.
10. Thus petitioners are seeking enhancement
contending that the compensation granted is highly
insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate and as such they
are entitled for enhancement and it is a case for interference
by this Court. Therefore, it has become necessary to examine
whether the compensation granted under various heads is just
and proper and if not, whether it is a fit case for interference.
11. Loss of dependency: The date of incident is
02.05.2016. Based on the PM report, the Tribunal has taken
the age of the deceased as 22 years as pleaded by the
petitioners. Though the petitioners have pleaded that
deceased was a Maison and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m.,
they have not produced any documents to prove the exact
income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken his
income as Rs.200/- per day i.e., Rs.6,000/- p.m. However, as
per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority, which is based on minimum wages, during the year
2016 the notional income is required to be taken at
Rs.9,500/-. Since the deceased was aged 22 years and was
doing private work, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Magma Insurance Co. 40% is required to be added
to the income of the deceased towards loss of future
prospects. 40% of Rs.9,500/- comes to Rs.3,800/- making the
total income Rs.13,300/-. Therefore, the income of the
deceased is to be taken as Rs.13,300/-.
11.1 Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his
income is to be deducted towards his personal and living
expenses and therefore petitioners are entitled for 50% of his
income towards loss of dependency. As the deceased was
aged 22 years, the appropriate multiplier is 18 as taken by
the Tribunal. With these figures, the total loss of dependency
is 13,300 x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.14,36,400/-. Therefore,
under the head loss of dependency the petitioners are entitled
for a sum of Rs.14,36,400/- as against Rs.9,77,200/- granted
by the Tribunal.
12. Loss of Consortium: The Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of
love and affection. However, as per the decision of the
Pranay Seti's case, each of the petitioners are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of
consortium. Therefore, together they are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.80,000/- as against Rs.40,000/-
granted by the Tribunal.
13. Funeral expenses: The Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head
transportation and funeral expenses which is correct. It
requires no interference.
14. Loss of estate: The Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head which
is correct and it also calls for no interference.
15. Thus in all petitioners are entitled for total
compensation in a sum of Rs.15,46,400/- as against
Rs.9,77,200/- granted by the Tribunal with interest at 6%
p.a. as detailed below:
Amount granted Amount granted
Heads by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Loss of dependency 9,07,200 14,36,400
Transportation of the 15,000 15,000
dead body and funeral
expenses
Loss of estate 15,000 15,000
Loss of consortium 40,000 80,000
TOTAL 9,77,200 15,46,400
16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Appellants/petitioners are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.15,46,400/- as
against Rs.9,77,200/- granted by the
Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization (minus the
amount already paid/deposited).
(iii) Respondent shall deposit the
compensation amount within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
