Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Faizunnissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 5932 Kant

                                                    -1-
                                                                NC: 2023:KHC:30303
                                                             MFA No. 8363 of 2015




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                               BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

                                    MFA NO.8363 OF 2015 (MV-D)

                       BETWEEN:


                       KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
                       CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE
                       K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
                       BANGALORE - 560 027
                       REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR             ... APPELLANT

                       (BY SRI.D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

                       AND:

                       SMT. FAIZUNNISSA
                       W/O LATE ABDUL LATHEEF
                       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                       R/AT NEAR BILAL MASZID
                       WARD NO. 16, SHAHEENSHA NAGAR
                       KOLAR CITY AND DISTRICT - 563 101      ... RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by    (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.)
MALA K N
Location: HIGH COURT         THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
OF KARNATAKA           AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.07.2015
                       PASSED IN MVC NO.1477/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1
                       ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM, MACT,
                       BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,77,948/-
                       WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
                       TILL COMPLETE REALIZATION.

                            THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
                       JUDGMENT ON 11.08.2023 AND COMING        ON FOR
                       PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
                       DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:30303
                                          MFA No. 8363 of 2015




                      JUDGMENT

In this appeal, K.S.R.T.C. has challenged the

judgment dated 21.07.2015 passed by the I

Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVII A.C.M.M.,

Bangalore (SCCH-11) ('the Tribunal' in short) in

M.V.C. No.1477/2016.

2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the

parties will be referred to as per their status before

the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the bachelor

brother of the petitioner by name Rahim Baig, the

deceased, while standing at the entrance of

K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, Kolar, K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing

Reg.No.KA-07/F-1101 came from M.B. Road towards

K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, dashed against the deceased

killing him at the spot. The petitioner being the

dependant of the deceased, has approached the

Tribunal seeking grant of compensation of

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

Rs.18,00,000/-. The claim was opposed by the

K.S.R.T.C. denying the accident. After taking the

evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned

judgment awarding compensation of Rs.6,77,948/-

with interest of 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the

K.S.R.T.C. has filed this appeal on various grounds.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri. D. Vijaya

Kumar, learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. and Smt.

Suguna. R. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is the contention of the earned counsel for

the K.S.R.T.C. that there was no accident at the spot

as claimed by the petitioner; due to alcoholic

influence, the deceased was fell down near the Bus

Stand due to which he succumbed to death. There is

no occasion for the bus to hit against the deceased.

The Tribunal ignoring all these aspects, accepted the

petitioner as dependant, so also the accident and

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

awarded the compensation which calls the

interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner

has contended that the accident took place on a

public road. The driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus has

been prosecuted for negligent driving of the bus.

K.S.R.T.C. has not challenged the prosecution of its

driver. The petitioners have produced materials to

show that at the place of accident, bus has hit

against the deceased, the deceased fell down and

back tyre of the bus ran over the deceased, killing

him at the spot. The mahazar drawn at the spot, so

also the sketch prepared clearly supports this aspect.

The nature of the injuries that the deceased suffered

was not at all possible if a person falls to the ground.

The petitioner is a widow, she has performed the

marriage of her children. She has lost her husband

at her younger age. For this reason, the deceased

was taking care of the petitioner and her children.

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

The deceased was residing along with the petitioner

on the date of accident and the petitioner and the

deceased both were inter-dependant of their

earnings. The Tribunal has rightly accepted the

evidence and awarded the compensation. It is

further contended that though the accident took

place in the year 2014, the Tribunal has taken the

income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- instead of

Rs.8,500/- and sought for enhancement of the

compensation.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides and also perused

the materials on record.

8. There is no dispute as to the relationship

between the petitioner and the deceased. The

material on record did point out that the petitioner

has lost her husband at her early age, the deceased

was residing along with the petitioner. He did not

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

get married himself and he has taken care of the

children of the petitioner. Ex.P10 is the ration card

issued by the Government of Karnataka in the year

2010 which refers to the name of the petitioner and

the name of the deceased. This document has not

been challenged. This goes to explain that the

deceased and the petitioner being brother and sister

were residing together four years prior to the

accident. Hence, I do not found any reason to

discard this. Ex.P5 is the Inquest Mahazar which

carries statement of the petitioner before the

Investigating Officer. She has specifically stated that

since she lost her husband 15 years ago, the

deceased was residing with her, taking care of her

welfare and her children.

9. The evidence also points out that the

petitioner has performed the marriage of her

children to Sira of Tumkur district. They are not

residing with her. When a widow sister lost her

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

husband at the early age, her brother kept himself

bachelor to take care of her family. Hence, I do not

found any force in the arguments advanced on

behalf of the K.S.R.T.C. The Trial Court has rightly

accepted that the petitioner is the dependant widow

sister of the deceased and she is entitled to claim

compensation as dependant.

10. K.S.R.T.C. has disowned the accident. The

petitioner has relied upon Police Papers as per Ex.P1

to P9 such as F.I.R., Complaint, Spot Mahazar,

Seizure Mahazar, Inquest Mahazar, Post-mortem

Report, Motor Vehicles Inspection Report, Spot

Sketch and so also the Charge sheet filed against the

driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus in C.C.No.408/2014 on

the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M.,

Kolar. The Spot Mahazar points out that soon after

the accident, the bus was parked there itself where

the dead body was lying, there is a spill over of the

blood. Post-mortem Report as well as Inquest

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

Mahazar points out the deceased has suffered

gapping wound with fracture of skull, fracture of left

shoulder, fracture of left frontal bone, fracture of left

maxillary bone with rapture of left eye balls and

cause of the death is due to neurological shock on

account of head and neck injuries. If the arguments

of learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. is to be

accepted that the deceased with alcoholic influence

fell down on the road and sustained these kind of

injuries was not at all possible. When the Mahazar

was drawn and the bus was seized, the dead body

was on the left back tyre of the bus with spill over of

the blood. If the bus was not involved in the

accident, why the bus was parked along with the

dead body is not explained. Therefore, the material

on record clearly speaks out the involvement of the

bus in question causing head and neck injury for

killing the deceased at the spot. The Trial Court has

appreciated these aspects and I do not found any

force in the arguments canvassed by the K.S.R.T.C.

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

11. I have carefully perused the impugned

judgment. The Tribunal considered that the

deceased was doing coolie and assessed his income

at Rs.5,000/- per month, added future prospects of

15%, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and

thereafter arrived at loss of dependency at

Rs.5,97,248/-, towards loss of love and affection at

Rs.25,000/-, towards loss of estate Rs.30,000/-,

funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/-. The accident is of

the year 2014. If the principles of National

Insurance Co.Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi and

Others1 is applied, even for a person with no proof

of income, a sum of Rs.8,500/- is assessed. The

deceased was aged 50 years. If 25% is added as

future prospectus, it comes to Rs.10,625/-. Since

the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of it i.e.,

Rs.5,313/- is taken up, the actual income comes to

(2017) 16 SCC 680

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

Rs.5,312/- multiplied by 12 x 11, the loss of

dependency comes to Rs.7,01,184/-. Under the

conventional heads towards loss of love and affection

Rs.20,000/-, loss of estate and funeral expenses of

Rs.10,000/- each is added, the total compensation

comes to Rs.7,41,184/- whereas the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.6,73,548/-. Since the petitioner has not

filed any appeal, in the facts and circumstances of

the case I do not found any reason to enhance the

compensation suo-moto.

12. The Tribunal after considering the materials

on record, rightly appreciated the claim of the

petitioner and awarded the compensation. Hence,

the appeal is devoid of merits, in the result, I pass

the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is dismissed.

ii) Impugned judgment is confirmed.

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:30303 MFA No. 8363 of 2015

iii) K.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.6,73,548/- with 6% interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with records forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PA CT:HS