Karnataka High Court
Syed Mohammed And Anr vs Ganapati C Gudkar And Anr on 7 December, 2023
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
MFA No. 200528 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200528 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 200020 OF 2021
IN MFA NO. 200528 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, HOSPET DIVISION BALLARI,
THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY,
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
SARIGE SADANA,
Digitally signed KALABURAGI
by LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF (BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SYED MOHAMMED
S/O SYED ABDUL RAJAK,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. SMT. HAFEEJBI
W/O SYED MOHAMMED ATTAR,
AGE:56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
BOTH ARE R/O ADARSHA COLONY,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
MFA No. 200528 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
SINDHANUR,
NOW R/O BANDE NAVAZ COLONNY, RAICHUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 25.06.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II
ADDLITIONAL DISRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER
MACT AT, RAICHUR IN MVC NO.341/2019.
IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 200020 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SYED MOHAMMED
S/O SYED ABDUL RAJAK,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. SMT. HAFEEJBI
W/O SYED MOHAMMED ATTAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
BOTH ARE R/O ADARSHA COLONY, SHINDHNUR,
NOW R/O BANDE NAWAZ COLONY, RAICHUR,
DISTRICT RAICHUR.
...CROSS OBJECTIORS
(BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANAPATI C GUDKAR
S/O CHANDRAKANT,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKSRTC,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
MFA No. 200528 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
HOSPET DIVISION,
HOSPET DIST. BALLARI- 583201
(DRIVER OF BUS NO. KA. 35/F-0342).
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKSRTC, HOSPET DIVISION,
BALLARI- 583201
(SELF INSURER OF NEKSRTC BUS NO. KA-35/F-0342
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2022 NOTICE TO R1
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O 41 RULE 22OF CPC ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.06.2020, PASSED BY THE II
- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (MACT)
RAICHUR, IN MVC NO. 341/2019 AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.200528/2021 is filed by the appellant-
Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and awards
dated 25.06.2020 passed by M.V.C. No.341/2019 on the
file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and
M.A.C.T, Raichur and MFA cross objection in MFA.CROB
No. 200020 of 2021 is filed by the appellant-claimants
seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2019
one Syed Tajuddin, son of the petitioners was retuning on
motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-36-X-9908 on
Manvi-Raichur road when he reached near Bettadur Kama,
the bus bearing registration No. KA-36-F-342 belonging to
appellant-corporation driven by its driver-respondent No.1
in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor
cycle of the deceased, resulting in him sustaining multiple
grievous injuries to his head and other vital parts of the
body and succumbed to injuries at the spot.
3. There upon claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of Rs.54,00,000/- on the premise that the
deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of his
death and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. as two wheeler
mechanic and was also carrying on auto consultant
business. The claimants being parents of the deceased
untimely death of the deceased which occurred on account
of rash and negligent driving of the respondent-
Corporation by its driver has caused financial and
emotional distress to the claimants.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
4. In response to the notices issued to the respondent
No.1-Driver and respondent No.2-Corporation therein,
respondent No.2-Corporation filed a written statement
denying the petitioner's averments, mode and manner of
the accident and also the income of the deceased. The
Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence,
claimant No.1 examined as PW-1 and exhibited 6
documents marked as Ex-P1 to Ex-P6. One witness has
been examined on behalf of the respondent-Driver as RW-
1 and exhibited one document namely interim
compensation payment receipt which is marked as R-1.
The tribunal on appreciating of the evidence came to the
conclusion that the accident in question had occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus
by its driver and resulting in death of deceased and
accordingly the partly allowed the claim petition by
granting award of Rs.14,00,800/- to the claimants of the
deceased Syed Tajuddin with interest 8% p.a. from the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
date of claim petition till disposal. Aggrieved by the same
the appellant-corporation is before this Court.
5. Sri. Sudhirsingh R Vijapur, learned counsel for the
appellant-Corporation reiterating the grounds urged in the
memorandum of petition submits that, the tribunal filed to
appreciate the material evidence on record in that the
accident had occurred on account of negligence on the
part of the deceased, who himself was driving the motor
cycle in the negligent manner. Thus he submits that the
tribunal ought to have attributed negligence on the part of
the deceased. He further submits that no evidence has
been produced with regard to the income of the deceased
as such grant of compensation is exorbitant. Hence, seeks
for allowing of the appeal.
6. Smt. Patel Shantabai Subhash, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents-Claimants submits that the
tribunal has come to this conclusion based on the evidence
in attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending bus, warranting no interference. However, as
regards to the claim she submits that the tribunal has
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
assessed the income at Rs.9,000/- p.m. which is grossly
inadequate, while the petitioner was earning Rs.25,000/-
from carrying on auto consultant business and two
wheeler mechanic. She further submits that the tribunal
has not awarded under the heads of loss of future
prospects and other conventional heads. Hence, seeks for
enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
8. The only ground that is urged by the appellant-
corporation is with regard to liability. Perusal of the Ex-P2
which is a copy of spot inspection mahazar and sketch
would reveal that the offending bus was proceeding
towards west to east i.e., towards Manvi to Raichur and
the deceased was proceeding towards east to west i.e.,
towards Raichur to Manvi. The spot of the accident as
shown in the Ex-P2 would reveal that the accident in
question had taken place on the southern side of the road
which is extreme right side of the bus and on the left side
of the motor cycle. The tribunal at paragraph 10 of the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
impugned order has appreciated these aspects of the
matter and has come to the conclusion that the driver of
the bus had crossed his direction and gone to the extreme
right of the road resulting in the accident and thus held
that the driver of the offending bus was negligent in
driving the bus. The reasoning assigned by the tribunal
read in the light of material evidence namely Ex-P2 and
the contents of FIR and chargesheet, no informative can
be found with the finding arrived at by the tribunal. The
chargesheet is registered only against the driver of the
offending bus-Corporation. For these reasons, lone ground
raised by the appellant-corporation cannot be
countenanced, same is rejected.
9. As regards the cross-objection is concerned,
though it is contended that the deceased was earning
Rs.25,000/- p.m. from carrying out the auto consultant
business and two wheeler mechanic no document evidence
is produced in that regard. This Court in the absence of
any documentary evidence regarding income, takes into
consideration the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
Legal Services Authority, wherein the notional income of
the victims of the road traffic accident for the year 2019 is
determined at Rs.13,250/- per month. The same is taken
in this case as well. In view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, 40% of
the income has to be added towards future prospects.
Since the deceased was a bachelor 50% of the said
income needs to be deducted towards his personal and
living expenses. The age of the deceased being 25 years,
multiplier of 18 to be applied. Calculated as above, the
appellants would be entitled for total compensation of
Rs.20,03,400/- (Rs.13,250 + 40% x 12 x 18 - 50%)
towards 'loss of dependency'.
10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 which is subsequently
clarified in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v.
Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, claimants being the
parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each
i.e., Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium.
11. Further, the appellants are entitled for
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses.
12. 10. That apart, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), there shall be increment of 10% on the
compensation awarded under conventional heads.
13. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.21,24,400/- instead of Rs.14,00,800/-
awarded by the Tribunal as under:
Sl. Heads By By
No. Tribunal this Court
1 Loss of dependency Rs.13,60,800/- Rs. 20,03,400/-
2 Love and affection ---- --
3 Loss of consortium ---- Rs.80,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/-
6 Addition of 10% --- Rs.11,000/-
Total Rs.14,00,800/- Rs.21,24,400/-
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9075
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200020 of 2021
14. For the foregoing reasons, the following:
ORDER
a) The Cross-Objection filed by the claimants
is partly allowed.
b) The appeal filed by the appellant-
Corporation is dismissed.
c) The Cross-objector-claimants are held
entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.21,24,400/- instead of Rs.14,00,800/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
6% per annum from the date of claim
petition till realization.
d) Appellant-Corporation deposit the aforesaid
compensation amount within a period six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
e) The award of the Tribunal is modified
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RL
