Karnataka High Court

Rajamma vs Managing Director on 25 May, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                          1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            MFA No.2940 OF 2020(MV)

BETWEEN:

1. RAJAMMA
   W/O LATE SIDDACHARI,
   AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

2. SHASIKALA
   W/O SURESH,
   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

3. UMESH
   S/O LATE SIDDACHARI,
   AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

4. REKHA
   W/O RAGHU
   AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

  ALL ARE RESIDING AT
  NO.224C,
  MANJUNATHA NAGARA,
  RAMANAGARA 562 159
                                     ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI TEJAS N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . MANAGING DIRECTOR
                            2



   K.S.R.T.C,
   CENTRAL OFFICE,
   K.H.ROAD,
   SHANTHINAGAR,
   BANGALORE 560027
                                          ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHANKAR GOUD G, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.25.10.2019 PASSED IN
MVC NO.389/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the claimants being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.10.2019 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional

Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara in MVC

No.389/2018

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 29.07.2018 at about

10.10 A.M., when the deceased was standing opposite

to Venkatesh Shop, Kapanaiahna Doddi to cross the

B.M.Road, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing

Registration No.KA-10-F-0284 drove the same in a

very rash and negligent manner and dashed against

deceased-Siddachari. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

the deceased along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded

that the accident was due to negligence on the part of

the deceased himself crossing the highway without

observing the traffic. The driver of the KSRTC Bus

possessed a valid driving licence as on the date of the

accident. The age, occupation and income of the

deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the

quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is

exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to

prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.

On behalf of respondent, one witness was examined

as RW-1 but no documents were marked. The Claims

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held

that the accident took place on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver,

as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries

and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further

held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation

of Rs.7,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7%

p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. Sri Tejas N, learned counsel for the

claimants has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident

and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by

working as Carpenter. But the Tribunal is not justified

in taking the monthly income of the deceased as

merely as Rs.10,000/-.

Secondly, there are four claimants/dependents

depending upon the income of the deceased. The

Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the income of

the deceased towards 'personal expenses'.

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in

2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for

compensation under the head of 'loss of love and

affection and consortium'.

Lastly, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower

side. Hence, he prays for enhancement of

compensation.

7. Smt. Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for

Sri G. Shankar Goud, learned counsel for the

Corporation has raised the following counter-

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the

same is not established by the claimants by producing

documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

Secondly, since the claimants have not

established the income of the deceased, they are not

entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.

Thirdly, even though there are four claimants,

claimant Nos.2 and 4 are the daughters of the

deceased, they are married and living separately and

they are not depending upon the income of the

deceased and claimant No.3 is the son of the

deceased, who is also not depending upon the income

of the deceased. Therefore, the claimant No.1, who is

the wife of the deceased alone is depending upon the

income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has

rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased

towards 'personal expenses'.

Fourthly, in view of judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE

AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS

(MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of

on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6%

interest but the Tribunal has granted 7% interest is on

the higher side.

Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal has awarded just and

reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for

dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that Siddachari died in

the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

The claimants have not produced any evidence or

document with regard to the income of the deceased.

Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as

per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place

in the year 2018, the notional income has to be taken

at Rs.12,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid amount, 10%

has to be added on account of future prospects in

view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of

the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC

5157]. Thus, the monthly income comes to

Rs.13,750/-. Even though there are four claimants,

claimant Nos.2 and 4 are the daughters of the

deceased, they are married and living separately and

they are not depending upon the income of the

deceased. Claimant No.3, who is the son of the

deceased, is also not depending upon the income of

the deceased. Claimant No.1, who is the wife of the

deceased alone, is depending upon the income of the

deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in

deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards

'personal expenses'. Thus, the monthly income comes

to Rs.6,875/-. The deceased was aged about 55 years

at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to

his age group is '11'. Thus, the claimants are entitled

to compensation of Rs.9,07,500/- (Rs.6,875*12*11)

on account of 'loss of dependency'.

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and

Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE'

(supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is

entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the

head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2, 3

and 4, children of the deceased are entitled for

compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of

'loss of parental consortium'.

10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

following compensation:

        Compensation under           Amount in
           different Heads             (Rs.)
       Loss of dependency               9,07,500
       Funeral expenses                   15,000
       Loss of estate                     15,000
       Loss of spousal                    40,000
       consortium
       Loss of Parental                     1,20,000
       consortium
                      Total           10,97,500

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.10,97,500/- as against

Rs.7,96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE', the

enhanced compensation amount shall carry 6%

interest.

The Corporation is directed to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest from the

date of filing of the claim petition till the date of