Karnataka High Court
A. P. S. R. T. C vs Smt Asha on 21 March, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.2091/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
A.P.S.R.T.C.
REP BY IT'S MANAGER,
TANK BUND ROAD,
NEAR KEMPEGOWDA BUS STATION,
SUBHASH NAGAR,
BANGALORE,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
A.P.S.R.T.C.
MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ASHA,
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
@ MUNIVANKATA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. KUM. LAVANYA,
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
@ MUNIVANKATA,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS (MINOR),
3. MASTER VEDANTH,
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
@ MUNIVANKATA,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS (MINOR),
2
R2 & R3 ARE MINORS,
REP BY THEIR MOTHER /
NATURAL GUARDIAN / P1.
4. SMT. PUTTAMMA,
W/O LATE BACHAPPA,
@ VENKATARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT,
HIREPALYA VILLAGE,
SANTHEKALLAHALLI POST,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKBALLAPUR DIST - 562 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.GOPALKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.357/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT KOLAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by respondent - corporation seeking
dismissal of the claim petition.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Respondent- corporation has sought for
dismissal of claim petition contending that the vehicle in
question is not at all involved in the accident, the petitioner
and her witnesses have failed to prove the said fact and
ultimately even if the involvement of the vehicle in question
is held to be proved, the compensation granted is on the
higher side.
4. On the other hand petitioners have supported
the impugned judgment and award and have sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
5. FACTS: It is the case of the petitioners that they
are the wife, children and mother of deceased
V.Munivenkatappa @ Munivenkata (hereinafter referred to
as deceased) on 24.06.2011 at around 5.30 p.m, while
deceased was riding Hero Honda motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA 40/L-4182 from 'H' Cross towards
Hirepalya, near Beechagondanahalli on Bengaluru-
Chintamani Road, accident occurred due to rash or
negligent driving by the driver of APSRTC bus bearing
registration No.AP-28/Z-6049 (hereinafter referred to as
offending vehicle), as a result of which deceased sustained
injuries and died on the spot.
6. Before the Tribunal, respondent has filed written
statement contending the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal.
7. Based on the pleadings, Tribunal has framed the
issues.
8. During enquiry petitioner is examined as PW-1
and one witness as PW-2, Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 are marked.
9. Respondent has not led any evidence.
10. Vide impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of
Rs.13,04,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as detailed below:
Heads Amount in
Rs.
Loss of income/dependency 12,09,600
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 40,000
Loss of love and affection 25,000
Funeral obsequies including 15,000
transportation of the dead body
TOTAL 13,04,600
with interest @
6%p.a.
11. Petitioners have not challenged the impugned
judgment and award.
12. Based on the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, the Tribunal has held that the accident
occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver
of the offending vehicle and as such respondent-corporation
is liable to pay the compensation. I find no reason to
interfere with the said findings.
13. The incident has taken placed on 24.06.2011.
Based on the post mortem report, the Tribunal has rightly
taken the age of the deceased as 32 years and
consequently, the multiplier 16 is appropriate. Though the
petitioners claim that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/-
p.m., in the absence of evidence to support the same,
based on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Committee, the notional income at Rs.6,000/-
considered by the Tribunal is correct. Since, deceased was
aged below 40 years and was engaged in private
employment, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Magma Insurance Co., case the Tribunal has
rightly added 40% of income at Rs.2,400/- towards loss of
future prospects making the total income as Rs.8,400/-.
14. Since there are four dependents, the Tribunal
has rightly deducted ¼ of income towards personal and
living expenses of deceased and taken 3/4th of income for
calculating loss of dependency, which is 8,400 x 12 x 16 x
¾ = 12,09,600/-. Similarly, under the conventional heads,
the Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate
and funeral expenses. It has granted Rs.40,000/- under the
head loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- under the head
loss of love and affection. I find no reason to interfere with
the same. Thus, in all the Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.13,04,600/- with interest at
6% p.a. which is just and reasonable.
15. In the result appeal fails and accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The amount in deposit is directed to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
