Karnataka High Court
Hajra Begum And Ors vs The Managing Director on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.200437/2018 (MV)
Between:
1. Hajra Begum W/o Late Jabbar Patel,
Age: 58 years, Occ: Household,
2. Azam Patel S/o Late Jabbar Patel,
Age: 41 years, Occ: Unemployed,
3. Ismail Patel S/o Late Jabbar Patel,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Unemployed.
All are R/o Mogdal now at Mannaekhelli,
Tq. Humnabad, Dist. Bidar-585 227.
... Appellants
(By Sri Basavaraj R.Math, Advocate)
And:
The Managing Director,
Maharastra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Workshop, Pune Depot,
Represented by Depot Manager,
M.S.R.T.C. Omerga Division, Omerga,
Dist. Omerga, Maharastra-413 606.
... Respondent
(By Sri Rahul R. Asture, Advocate)
2
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the M.V. Act praying to call for records and
modify the impugned judgment and award dated
25.09.2017 passed by the Additional MACT and Principal
Senior Civil Judge & CJM at Bidar in MVC No.385/2015.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioners under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')
challenging the judgment and award dated 25.09.2017
passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
and Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bidar (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.385/2015.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and
the respondent is the respondent before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are
that on 04.03.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., when the
deceased-Jabbar Patel was proceeding from house
towards his agriculture land on NH-9, the driver of
MSRTC bus bearing No.MH 14 BT 4109 came from
Hyderabad side and dashed against the said Jabbar Patel
resulting in his instantaneous death. Petitioners being
the legal representatives of the deceased-Jabbar Patel
filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking
compensation on account of the death of Jabbar Patel in
the road traffic accident.
4. The respondent filed statement of objections
denying the averments made in the claim petition and
contended that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction
to try the claim petition. It is contended that there was
no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and
the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the
part of the deceased as he was hurriedly crossing the
road and lost control and fallen down on the road and
died. On these grounds, the respondent prayed to
dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the following issues:
i. Whether the claimant proves that on 04-
03-2015 at about 10:30 am when the
deceased was proceeding towards his
agricultural land on NH-9 then the driver
of MSRTC bus bearing No.MH BT 4109
driven by its driver came from
Hyderabad side in a high speed and rash
and negligent manner lost control and
dashed the deceased due to which he
instantaneously died on the spot?
ii. Whether the respondent proves the
violated the terms and conditions of
insurance policy?
iii. Whether the claimant is entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
iv. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the case, the petitioners
examined petitioner No.1 as PW.1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The respondent examined
one witness as RW.1 and no documentary evidence was
marked on behalf of the respondent.
7. The Tribunal after recording the evidence
and after considering the material on record has
recorded a finding that the petitioners have proved that
the deceased-Jabbar Patel died in the accident, which
occurred on 04.03.2015, due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending bus and held that
the petitioners are entitled to compensation and
consequently, allowed the claim petition is part and
awarded compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of realization and further,
directed the respondent to deposit the compensation
amount.
8. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners/appellants have
filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners have contended in the claim
petition that the deceased-Jabbar Patel was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month from the business. In support of
their contention, though the petitioners have not
produced any records, the Tribunal ought to have taken
the notional income of the deceased as per the
guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services
Authority. But, the Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month which is on the lower
side and on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent supports the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal and submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper and does not call for interference and prays to
dismiss the appeal.
12. I have perused the records and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties. The point that arises for consideration is with
regard to quantum of compensation.
13. The occurrence of the accident, involvement
of the offending vehicle in the accident and death of the
deceased-Jabbar Patel in the accident are not in dispute.
In order to prove that the accident has occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending bus, the petitioners have produced copy of the
FIR and charge sheet which are marked as Exs.P1 and
P6. From perusal of the said records, it is clear that the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the offending bus. Therefore, the
Tribunal was justified in recording finding that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending bus.
14. Perusal of the impugned judgment would
indicate that the petitioners/appellants did not tender
any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased
before the Tribunal. In the absence of proof of income,
the notional income of the deceased will have to be
taken as per the chart provided by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority. In terms of the chart, for the
accident of the year 2015, the notional income of the
deceased will have to be taken at Rs.8,000/- as against
Rs.5,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal. Out of
which, considering that there are three dependents, I
deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the said income
towards personal expenses of the deceased and
therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.5,334/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased
which was 65 years at the time of accident, as per the
postmortem report, multiplier of 7 has to be adopted as
per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.4,48,056/- (5,334 x 12 x 7) on account of loss of
dependency as against Rs.2,10,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
15. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130, each petitioner is entitled to a
sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The
petitioners are three in number, hence the
compensation towards loss of consortium would be
Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3). In addition, the
petitioners/appellants are entitled a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate.
16. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.5,98,056/- as against Rs.3,45,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal.
17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
iii. The petitioners are entitled to an
enhanced compensation of
Rs.2,53,056/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
iv. The respondent is directed to deposit
the compensation amount before the
Tribunal within a period of eight weeks
from date of the receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
