Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Smt Gowramma 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.8686 OF 2018(MV)

BETWEEN:

The Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Bengaluru Central Office,
Sarige Bhavana, K.H.Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027,
Represented by its Chief Law Officer.        ... Appellant

(By Sri N.Kumar, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Smt.Gowramma,
       W/o.Late Gangadharaiah,
       Aged about 52 years.

2.     Sri Marulasiddaswamy K.G.
       S/o.Late Gangadharaiah,
       Aged about 34 years.

Both are residing at
No.84, 2nd Cross, 3rd Main,
Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru.                                ... Respondents

(Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 served and unrepresented)
                             2




      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:20.06.2018 passed
in MVC No.6326/2016 on the file of the XVI Additional
Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, SCCH-14,
awarding compensation of Rs.5,45,200/- with interest @
9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

      This MFA, coming on for hearing, this day, this
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 Karnataka State Road

Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Corporation') being aggrieved by the judgment dated

20.06.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bengaluru City, SCCH-14 in MVC

No.6326/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 09.10.2010 at about 9.20

a.m., the deceased Gangadharaiah was riding his

cycle carrying a ragi bag and was crossing NH-206

road near Konehalli village and nearby Railway

Station. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing

registration No.KA-17/F-1150, which was being driven

in a rash and negligent manner, came from Tiptur

towards Arasikere, dashed against the deceased. As

a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased

sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the

injuries at the spot.

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. The age, occupation and income of the

deceased are 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 the

negligence of the deceased himself. It was further

pleaded that the driver of the KSRTC bus was driving

the same in a slow and cautious manner. It was

further pleaded that in order to make a wrongful gain

the claimants have falsely implicated the bus in

question and foisted a false case. 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.P1 to Ex.P9.

On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined

as RW-1 and no documents were got 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.5,45,200/- along with interest at

the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Corporation to

deposit the compensation amount along with interest.

Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month from milk

vending, Rs.10,000/- from cable office and Rs.8,000/-

from agriculture, the same is not established by the

claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the

notional income assessed by the Tribunal at

Rs.8,000/- per month is on the higher side.

Secondly, since the claimants have not

established the income of the deceased, they are not

entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.

Thirdly, in view of the law laid down by a

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 rate of interest awarded by the

Tribunal at 9% p.a. is on the higher side.

Fourthly, immediately after the accident, the

Corporation has paid Rs.50,000/- as interim

maintenance. But the Tribunal has failed to deduct

the same. In support of his contention, he has filed

an application before this Court under Order 41 Rule

27, producing the receipt for having paid Rs.50,000/-

to the claimants. Hence, he sought for allowing the

appeal.

7. The respondents even though served have

remained unrepresented.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellants. Perused the judgment and award and the

original records.

9. It is not in dispute that deceased

Gangadharaiah died in the road traffic accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver.

The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.21,000/- per month. But they have not produced

any documents to prove the income of the deceased.

In the absence of proof of income, the notional income

has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. For the

accident taken place in the year 2010, the notional

income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.5,500/-

p.m.

To the aforesaid income, the Tribunal has rightly

added 10% 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 reported in AIR

2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to

Rs.6,060/-. Since the second claimant, who is the son

of the deceased, is a major and he was not depending

upon the income of the deceased, only the first

claimant - wife of the deceased was depending upon

the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly

deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards

personal expenses and remaining amount has to be

taken as his contribution to the family, i.e., Rs.3,025/-

The deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of

the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group

is '9'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to

compensation of Rs.3,26,700/- (Rs.3,025*12*9) on

account of 'loss of dependency'.

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

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

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

of 'funeral expenses'. Claimant No.1, wife of the

deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-

under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE

CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], ,

claimant No.2, son of the deceased is entitled for

compensation of Rs.40,000/- 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                  3,26,700
       Funeral expenses                      15,000
       Loss of estate                        15,000
       Loss of spousal                       40,000
       consortium
       Loss of Parental                         40,000
       consortium
                      Total                 4,36,700


     Since     the    Corporation     has      paid       interim

compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants, the

same has to be deducted from the total compensation

of Rs.4,36,700/- and the compensation payable by the

Corporation comes to Rs.3,86,700/-.

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.3,86,700/- as against

Rs.5,45,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench

of this Court in the case of JOYEETA BOSE (supra),

the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9%