Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Smt Kempamma on 16 June, 2023

Bench: T G Gowda

                              1
                                       MFA NO.160 OF 2015


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                            BEFORE

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

             MFA NO.160 OF 2015 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
       CORPORATION, (K S R T C)
       CENTRAL OFFICE, KENGAL
       HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
       BANGALORE 560 027

2.     THE MANAGER
       INTERNAL INSURNACE
       K S R T C, CENTRAL DIVISION
       K H ROAD, BANGALORE 560 027
       REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER    ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.F.S.DABALI, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SMT KEMPAMMA
       W/O LATE BHATYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

2.     SRI VINOD KUMAR B
       S/O LATE BHATAYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

       BOTH ARE R/AT BETTENAHALLI
       HEBBANAHALHALLI POST
       DEVANAHALLI TALUK
       BANGALORE DIST.562 110.    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRIB.M.LOKESH, ADV.)
                               2
                                      MFA NO.160 OF 2015


      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.7092/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT-4,   BANGALORE,    AWARDING    COMPENSATION     OF
RS.6,30,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

     THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   02.06.2023 AND COMING  ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                     JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' in short), is filed by the

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('the

Corporation' for short) against the judgment and

award dated 22.09.2014 passed in

M.V.C.No.7092/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, SCCH-4,

('the Tribunal' in short).

2. The appellants were the respondents and

the respondent were the petitioners before the

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

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

parties will be referred to as per their status before

the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case is that, on 12.07.2012

at about 12.15 p.m., one Bhatyappa ('the deceased'

in short), who is the husband of petitioner no.1 and

father of second petitioner while going in a motor

cycle bearing no.KA-43/J-415 ridden by his another

son Vinod Kumar on Bangalore-Doddaballapura road

near Marasandra, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-40-810

came from the opposite direction with high speed in

an attempt to over take another vehicle came to the

extreme right side of its way and dashed against the

motor cycle in which the deceased was travelling,

inflicting injuries to the deceased as well as his son

Vinod Kumar. He was shifted to Deeksha Hospital,

Yelahanka where he succumbed to death. Pleading

that the deceased was a Drama Playback singer and

also doing business, earning Rs.25,000/- per month,

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

petitioners being the dependants have moved the

Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

seeking grant of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. Claim

was opposed by both respondents. The Tribunal

taking the evidence passed the impugned judgment

awarding compensation of Rs.6,30,000/-. Aggrieved

by the said judgment, the respondents are before this

court on various grounds.

4. I have heard Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel

for the Corporation and Sri.B.M.Lokesh, learned

counsel for the petitioners.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellants that there is no proof of income, that

the deceased was earning either of Rs.15,000/- or

Rs.25,000/-, but the Tribunal has assessed the

income at Rs.15,000/- for the accident of the year

2012, which is on higher side. The deceased was

having only dependant wife as the other children are

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

major and having independent income. The Tribunal

ought to have deducted 50% towards personal

expenses, but it has deducted 1/3rd erroneously. The

entire negligence is attributed against the bus even

though the evidence speaks contributory negligence

on the part of Vinod Kumar, the rider of the motor

cycle. Hence, the impugned judgment calls for

interference.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners

has contended that the accident took place on a main

road where Vinod Kumar along with deceased as a

pillion rider riding the motor cycle on the extreme left

side of the road towards their side whereas the bus

came from the opposite direction, made an attempt to

over take the vehicle going ahead, while doing so, it

came to extreme right of the road and caused the

accident. The rider of the motor cycle has no role for

causing of the accident, but he was a sufferer. It is

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

further contended that the deceased was a Playback

singer in Dramas, he has been awarded with many

rewards and certificates which are produced at Ex.P15

series and also certificate issued by the Jalige Grama

Panchayat at Ex.P14 points out that being a senior

singer. At the age of 65 years, he was earning more

than Rs.25,000/- per month and for this reason, the

Tribunal has taken income at Rs.15,000/-. It is

further contended that the deceased left behind his

wife, who is the dependant and therefore, the

Tribunal is correct in deducting 1/3rd towards personal

expenses, the impugned judgment is a well-reasoned

order and it has to be confirmed.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides and also perused

the materials on record.

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is

pertinent to note that the Tribunal has assessed loss

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

of dependency at Rs.6 lakhs and awarded Rs.10,000/-

each under conventional heads. At the outset, the

methodology adopted by the Tribunal is not correct.

As seen from the evidence on record, the postmortem

report and also inquest panchanama did point out

that the deceased was aged 68 years. In view of the

judgment in Sarla Varma (Smt.) and Others -vs-

Delhi Transport Corporation and Another1 case,

the multiplier that is applicable for the age of 68 years

will be '5', that is correctly take by the Tribunal.

9. As regards deduction of 1/3rd towards

personal expenses is concerned, the deceased left

behind his wife and children. Though the children are

not dependant, they are entitled for the compensation

under the conventional heads. The first petitioner is

aged 55 years, she is fully dependant on her husband.

Having regard to the fact that deceased left behind

(2009) 6 SCC 121

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

the dependant, the Tribunal is right in deducting 1/3rd

towards personal expenses. I do not find any

substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the

appellants.

10. Adverting to income of the deceased is

concerned, apart from certificate issued by the Grama

Panchyat that the deceased was a Drama Artist, as

many as 10 certificates were also produced as per

Ex.P15 series to show that the deceased had

participated in many drama programmes, he was

awarded with recognition certificates. Even though

the petitioners claim that the deceased was earning

Rs.25,000/-, there is no proof of income. In case of

no proof of income and a person is self-employed in

the year 2012, the notional income being assessed at

Rs.7,000/- per month. Having regard to the fact that

the deceased at the age of 68 being a Playback singer

will certainly earn good income more than a common

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

labour can earn, therefore, the income of the

deceased could have been taken at Rs.10,000/-, but

the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.15,000/-,

which has no rationale. Hence, the notional income of

the deceased is taken at Rs.10,000/- per month.

11. Applying the principles of National

Insurance Co.Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi and

Others2's case, for a person of age of 68, there is no

question of applying future prospects, except

determining the conventional heads, such as, loss of

estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium to the

wife and loss of love and affection to the son.

Keeping these principles, if the compensation is

determined, it would come to Rs.4,00,020/-

(Rs.10,000/-x1/3rd=2,333/-, it comes to Rs.6,667/-

x12x5) rounded off to Rs.4,00,000/-. Under the

(2017) 16 SCC 680

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

conventional heads, towards loss of consortium a sum

of Rs.40,000/-, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards

loss of love and affection, loss of estate at

Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- if

assessed, the total compensation will come to

Rs.5,10,000/- as against Rs.6,30,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal and it is just and adequate compensation

under the facts and circumstances of the case.

12. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I do

not find any positive reason to sustain the impugned

judgment. Hence, the petitioners are only entitled to

Rs.5,10,00/- as against Rs.6,30,000/-, thereby the

quantum of compensation has to be reduced by

Rs.1,20,000/-. Hence, the appeal deserves to be

allowed. In the result, the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment stands modified.

MFA NO.160 OF 2015

(iii) The petitioners would be entitled for

compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- as against

Rs.6,30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal along

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of petition till its realization.