Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Munni vs The Managing Director on 23 February, 2023
Bench: M.I.Arun
-1-
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6583 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5215 OF 2019 (MV-D)
In MFA No.6583/2018
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027.
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by V
MANJUSHA 1. MRS. MUNNI
BAI
Location: High W/O LATE AMJAD
Court of AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
Karnataka
2. MS.MUSKAN TAJ
D/O LATE AMJAD
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
3. MS BIBI AYESHA
D/O LATE AMJAD
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
4. MS MUBEENA KOUSAR
D/O LATE AMJAD
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
-2-
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
APPELLANT NOs.2 TO 3 ARE MINORS
REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
MRS. MUNNI, APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O NO.537-B
KANAKANAGARA
YELUCHANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HAJIRA BI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7687/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-7), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.16,45,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
In MFA No.5215/2019
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. MUNNI
W/O LATE AMJAD
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
2. MISS MUSKAN TAJ
D/O LATE AMJAD
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
3. MISS BIBI AYESHA
D/O LATE AMJAD
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
4. MISS MUBEENA KOUSAR
D/O LATE AMJAD
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
MRS. MUNNI.
-3-
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
ALL ARE R/AT NO.537-B
KANAKANAGARA
YELUCHANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 078
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE - 562 129.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. HAJIRA BI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, K H ROAD
SHANTHI NAGARA
BENGALURU-560 027.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7687/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU SCCH-7, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
21.04.2018 passed in MVC No.7687/2016 by the Court of the
IX Addl. Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7)
(for short 'the Tribunal'), the petitioners therein have
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
preferred MFA No.5215/2019 and the respondent therein has
preferred MFA No.6583/2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 01.07.2016 at about 1.55 p.m., the deceased
Amjad met with an accident with KSRTC bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-42-F-1799 at Sarakki Signal, Kanakapura Road,
Bengaluru. Petitioners are his dependents.
4. The Tribunal has determined the compensation
amount at Rs.16,45,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a.
from the date of petition till realization and has assessed
negligence on part of the driver of the bus at 90% and that
of the deceased at 10% and has ordered that the respondent
to pay 90% of the amount determined as compensation to
the petitioners.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
preferred MFA No.5215/2019 and the respondent has
preferred MFA No.6583/2018.
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
6. The petitioners to prove their case before the
Tribunal, have examined petitioner No.1 as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P21. The respondent has examined the
driver of the bus as RW1.
7. The fact of accident having taken place and the
death of the deceased is not disputed. The main contention
of the respondent is that the accident happened due to the
negligence on part of the deceased himself and the Tribunal
erred in attributing 90% negligence to the driver of the bus.
It is also contended that the interest of 9% awarded by the
Tribunal is on the higher side.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for petitioners
contends that the deceased was not responsible for the
accident at all and the entire culpability is attributable to the
driver of the bus and that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side.
9. However, in the course of the arguments, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that she is willing to
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
accept the award of the Tribunal and has filed a memo dated
23.02.2023 to that effect. The memo is taken on record.
10. The spot mahazar (Ex.P4) and the sketch (Ex.P5)
show that the accident has taken place on the road. PW.1 is
not an eye witness to the accident. RW.1, though an eye
witness, is an interested witness and his deposition cannot
be completely relied upon. The police have charge sheeted
the driver of the bus. However, the charge sheet records
that the bus dashed against the deceased and when he fell
down, left side back wheel of the bus went on him resulting
in his death. This indicates that the bus has not hit him from
the front. Given the nature of accident as recorded in the
charge sheet and the sketch, I am of the opinion that the
Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident has
happened due to negligence on part of both the driver of the
bus and the deceased. Based on the evidence let in, the
Tribunal has apportioned the negligence at 90% against the
driver of the bus and 10% to the deceased. I do not see any
reason as to why the same requires to be altered.
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
11. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal
has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-
per month. However, the petitioners have not been able to
prove the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and as
per the Lok Adalat chart, which is relied upon in the absence
of proof of income, it would be Rs.9,500/- per month.
However, it is seen the Tribunal has awarded loss of
consortium at only Rs.40,000/-, when it was required to
award the same at Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioners. If
the said calculation were to be corrected, the difference in
compensation would not be much compared to what has
been arrived at by the Tribunal.
12. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners in the
course of her arguments submitted that she is willing to
accept the award of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to
contributory negligence on part of the deceased and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal.
13. Keeping that in view, given the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
be fair to confirm the compensation amount arrived at by the
Tribunal. However, in respect of the interest awarded, it is
seen that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
9% p.a., which in my opinion is on higher side. Given the
bank rate of interest, it would be appropriate to award an
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the compensation amount.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) MFA No.6583/2018 is allowed in part;
ii) MFA No.5215/2019 is dismissed;
iii) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal
is modified to the extent that the interest
awarded on the compensation amount is
reduced to 6% p.a. from 9% p.a., from the
date of petition before the Tribunal till
realization. In regards to other aspects, the
order of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed;
iv) The respondent shall pay the compensation
amount along with due interest thereon to
the petitioners within a period of six weeks
MFA No. 6583 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 5215 of 2019
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order;
v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall stand
transferred to the Tribunal;
vi) Draw modified award accordingly;
vii) Registry to return the records to the
jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE
PGG
