Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt Anuradha Ramathirtha on 6 May, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
M.F.A. No.8118 OF 2015 (MV-D)
C/W
M.F.A.No.5626 OF 2018 (MV-D)
MFA No.8118/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
... APPELLANT
[BY SHRI: D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE]
AND :
1. SMT ANURADHA RAMATHIRTHA
W/O RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. TEENA R T
D/O RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
2
3. ABHISHEK R
S/O RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
4. SMT.NARASAMMA
W/O TAMMANNA B T
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.181
1ST FLOOR, "SRIRAMA NILAYA"
OPP APMC YARD
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 096.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SHRI: K SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4(VC)]
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER-MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUES,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.49,86,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION.
MFA No.5626/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT ANURADHA RAMATHIRTHA
W/O LATE RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. TEENA R T
D/O LATE RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
3. ABHISHEK R
S/O LATE RAMATHIRTHA B T
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.181
1ST FLOOR, "SRIRAMA NILAYA"
OPP APMC YARD
3
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 096.
... APPELLANTS
[BY SHRI: K SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE (VC)]
AND :
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC
DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
... RESPONDENT
[BY SHRI: D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE]
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05.04.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, M G UMA J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
MFA No.8118 of 2015 is filed by Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation (for short 'BMTC'), challenging the
judgment and award dated 22.06.2015 passed in MVC No.58
of 2013 on the file of learned XIII Additional Judge and
Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, allowing
the claim petition by the claimants and awarding
compensation of Rs.49,86,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. for
the death of deceased Ramathirtha.
2. MFA No.5626 of 2018 is filed belatedly after 1008
days by the claimants aggrieved by the above said judgment
and award seeking enhancement of compensation awarded.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
4. Heard Shri D Vijayakumar, learned advocate for
the appellant and Shri K Shantharaj, learned advocate for the
respondents and vice versa.
5. Brief facts of the case are that, the deceased
Ramathirtha was riding the motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-02-HF-4476 on 26.08.2012 at 12.30 p.m. on Peenya
Police Station Road, along with his son Abhishek. The BMTC
bus bearing registration No.KA-01-FA-1834 came from the
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motor cycle. The rider of the motor cycle fell
down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was
shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, but he succumbed to
the fatal injuries. The pillion rider lodged the first
information against the driver of the offending bus. The
petitioners being the wife, daughter, son and mother of the
deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking
compensation for the death of the deceased.
6. The respondent-BMTC being the owner of the
offending bus contested the petition contending that the bus
was never involved in the accident. It was a self fall which
resulted in the death of motor cyclist. Therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
7. The claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and got
marked Exs.P1 to 21 in support of their claim. The
respondent examined RWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.R1 to 9
in support of its contention. The Tribunal after considering
the materials on record allowed the petition and awarded
compensation of Rs.49,86,000/- with interest at 8% per
annum from the date of petition till realization. The owner of
the bus has preferred the appeal challenging the impugned
judgment and award, whereas, the claimants have also filed
their appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Shri D Vijayakumar, learned advocate for BMTC
contended that the bus in question was not involved in the
accident. The deceased fell down from the motor cycle as
there was gravels on the road. The BMTC bus has been
falsely implicated only to claim compensation. He further
submitted that petitioner No.3 said to be the pillion rider was
not examined before the Court to prove the factum of
accident. PW3 examined as eye witness has not supported
the contention of the claimants. Under such circumstances,
the Tribunal could not have allowed the petition. Hence, he
prays for allowing the appeal.
9. Shri K Shantharaj, learned advocate for the
claimants submitted that the police records which are marked
before the Tribunal disclose that there was a road traffic
accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by
RW1. The evidence of RWs.1 to 3 is self serving statements
which are not supported by any materials. Therefore, the
Tribunal was right in awarding compensation. However, the
Tribunal has not assessed the just compensation. The
Tribunal erred in adopting split multiplier. He placed reliance
on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
R Valli and Others Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Ltd.,1 and prayed for awarding just
compensation.
10. We have carefully considered the contentions
urged by learned advocates on both sides.
11. It is the contention of claimants that the road
traffic accident has occurred on 26.08.2012 at 12.30 p.m.
Claimant No.3 was said to be the pillion rider along with his
father. He lodged the first information on the same day at
14.30 hours as per Ex.P1. There is prompt lodging of first
information within two hours of the accident. The informant
has specifically stated about the registration number of the
offending bus and the FIR was registered against the driver of
the said bus. Ex.P3 is the spot sketch and Ex.P4 is the spot
mahazar which disclose that the bus was coming from the
opposite direction. The width of the road at the scene of
2022 SCC Online SC 170
occurrence was 30 feet and the accident has occurred almost
on the right edge of the road. As per Ex.P5 - the motor
vehicle accident report, right side crash card of the motor
cycle had scratches. Ex.P6 - the inquest mahazar specifically
refers to 6 external injuries sustained by the deceased. One
of the injuries is fracture of right hand and it is specifically
mentioned that tyre of the vehicle had ran over the shoulder.
Similar injuries have been noted in Ex.P7 - the postmortem
report.
12. PW3 is one of the eye witness cited in Ex.P2 - the
charge sheet, which supports the contention of the claimants.
Minor discrepancies in the evidence of this witness during
cross examination will not falsify the contention taken by the
claimants. On close scrutiny of all these materials on record,
we are satisfied that there was a road traffic accident due to
the rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus by RW1 which
resulted in the death of rider of the motor cycle. Therefore,
the defence taken by the owner of the offending bus cannot
be accepted.
13. The deceased Ramathirtha was aged 52 years at
the time of his death. He was working as Deputy Manager in
State Bank of Mysore. This fact is not in serious dispute.
PW2 has spoken about the pay slip - Ex.P18 for the month of
July 2012. As per this document, the deceased had drawn
the gross salary of Rs.51,390/-. Considering the age of the
deceased at 52 years, the Tribunal adopted the split multiplier
i.e., 8 + 3 = 11. The Supreme Court in R.Valli (supra)
specifically held in para 11 as under:
"11. Thus, we find that the method of
determination of compensation applying two
multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to
the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi,
affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma. Since the
deceased was 54 years of age on the date of
incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would
be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla
Verma approved by this Court in Pranay Sethi."
Thus, adopting split multiplier in determining
compensation is no longer justified.
14. Since the deceased was having permanent job
and was aged 52 years at the time of his death, future
prospects at 15% is to be taken into consideration and the
appropriate multiplier would be 11.
15. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency is
worked out as follows:
The gross monthly income of the deceased is
Rs.51,390/-. Less income tax and professional tax
(Rs.51,390/- - Rs.2,820 - Rs.200/- = Rs.48,370/-. 15%
towards future prospects is to be added (Rs.48,370 X 15% =
Rs.7,255/-). Hence, total monthly income of the deceased
would be Rs.55,625/-. After deducting 1/4th towards personal
expenses, his monthly income could be assessed at
Rs.41,719/- (Rs.55,625 x ¼ = Rs.13,906/- (Rs.55,625 -
Rs.13,906). By applying 11 as multiplier, the loss of
dependency works out to Rs.55,06,908/- (Rs.41,719 x 12 x
11).
16. The claimants are also entitled for compensation
towards loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-, towards funeral
expenses Rs.15,000/- and towards loss of consortium
Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4).
17. The compensation re-computed is as follows:
Sl Description Amount Amount
No awarded by awarded by
the Tribunal this Court
a. Loss of dependency Rs.47,55,980/-
(including future
Rs.55,06,908/-
prospects)
b. Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-
Rs.1,60,000/-
(40,000 x 4)
c. Loss of love and Rs.60,000/-
affection ---
c. Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/-
d. Loss of funeral Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.49,85,980/- Rs.56,96,908/-
rounded off to
Rs.49,86,000/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs.7,10,908/-
18. This Court consistently is awarding interest at the
rate of 6% per annum for the motor vehicle accident claims.
Hence, the claimants are entitled for the same.
19. For the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying
I.A No.1/2018, the delay of 1008 days in filing the appeal is
condoned and application is allowed, subject to denial of
interest for the said period.
20. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) MFA No.8118 of 2015 is dismissed.
(ii) MFA No.5626 of 2018 is allowed in part by
holding that claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.56,96,908/-, as against
Rs.49,86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal,
with interest at 6% p.a., from the
date of filing claim petition till the date
of deposit;
(iii) Insurer shall pay the entire compensation amount
of Rs.56,96,908/-, with interest at 6% p.a., excluding
the amount already paid/deposited, if any, within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Claimants shall not be entitled for interest for 1008 days
as per order of even date. Disbursement shall be made
as directed by the Tribunal.
Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal, forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*bgn/-
