Karnataka High Court
Lakshmi @ Lakshmi Bai vs The Managing Director on 29 November, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
MFA No. 4867 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4867 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI BAI
W/O LATE ESHAPPA
@ ESHAPPA BHAJANTRI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. NAGAMMA
D/O LATE ESHAPPA
@ ESHAPPA BHAJANTRI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 470
3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS
NEHRU ROAD, BANGARAPPANAGAR
R R NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560098
PERMANENT ADDRESS
DANDOTI AT POST
Digitally signed
by CHITTAPURA TALUK
DHANALAKSHMI GULBARGA DIST-585211
MURTHY
...APPELLANTS
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC, SARIGE BHAVANA
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560027.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOHANI A HOLLA., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
MFA No. 4867 of 2020
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.01.2020
PASSED IN MVC NO. 70/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-
MACT, C/c XXII ASCJ AND ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH-24),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. 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 claimants being aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 23.01.2020 passed by the
MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.70/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 18.12.2018 at about 08.00 a.m., the
deceased Chandrakanth was pedestrian on footpath of
Mysuru Road and when he was going near Bharath Petrol
Bunk, Hosaguddadahalli, Bengaluru City, at that time, the
driver of BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-57-F-294
drove the same in high speed, rash and negligent manner
and all of a sudden came from Bapujinagar towards
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
tollgate and dashed against compound of Bharath Petrol
Bunk and moved further and dashed against three persons
viz., Chandrakanth, Yadukumar and Rajashekar, who were
pedestrian on the footpath. As a result of the aforesaid
accident, the deceased was struck under the said BMTC
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
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. It was
pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the
eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the
deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is
exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
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.P19. On behalf of
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 but no
document was 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.2,80,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% 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 claimants has raised the
following contentions:
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was
aged about 16 years at the time of the accident and he
was studying in I PUC and also doing milk vending/supply
and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and contributing
his entire income for maintenance of their family and for
his studies. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the
notional income of the deceased as merely as Rs.30,000/-
per annum.
b) Secondly, the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of CHETANA AND OTHERS vs. BABUJI M. AND OTHERS
reported in 2021 ACJ 1146 has held that there is no
prohibition under the Child and Adolescent Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 that the adolescent
of 17 years to involve in a milk vending business. The
Division Bench considering the said Act, has considered
the Notional Income and also awarded the future
prospects.
c) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V-
NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the claimants are
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head
of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
d) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing
the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Corporation has raised the following counter-contentions:
a) Firstly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was
aged 16 years studying in I PUC and he was a minor and
non-earning member in the family. The Tribunal after
considering the material available on record and referring
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER -V- LALA AND OTHERS
(2013 AIR SCW 5037), has awarded just and reasonable
compensation.
b) Secondly, the claimants have not proved that the
deceased was doing milk vending and therefore, the
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
claimants are not entitled for compensation for future
prospects.
c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of 'KISHAN GOPAL' (supra), considering
the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that Chandrakanth died in the
road traffic accident occurred on 18.12.2018 due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
10. The specific case of the claimants is that the
deceased was aged about 16 years as on the date of
accident and he was studying in I PUC and also doing milk
vending/supply and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
and contributing his entire income for maintenance of their
family and for his studies.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
'CHETANA' (supra) has held as follows:
"10. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 17
years as on the date of the accident. He might
not be an adult but he cannot be considered as a
child. He has to be considered as an adolescent.
Section 2 (i) and (ii) of the Child and Adolescent
Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
(for short "the Act") defines as follows:
"(i) "adolescent" means a person who has
completed his fourteenth year of age abut
has not completed his eighteenth year;
"(ii) "child" means a person who has not
completed his fourteenth year of age or
such age as may be specified in the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009),
whichever is more."
11. Section 3 of the Act prohibits employment of
a child in certain occupations and processes. The
said Act does not prohibit the adolescent of 17
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
years to involve in a milk vending business. The
deceased and his family are from rural area and
it is common for a person of 17 years to be
involved in milk vending or similar occupations.
The Tribunal has completely lost sight of this fact
and the reasoning is contrary to and in the teeth
of the statutory provisions.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 while
determining the multiplier/multiplicand in
accidental claims, has taken into consideration
persons from the age group of 15 years and
onwards while fixing the multiplier. If the
reasoning of the Tribunal is taken as correct, this
Court would be doing violence to a well settled
position in law. The erudite judgment has not
only stood the test of reason but has also stood
the test of time. In fact, the Constitutional Bench
of the Apex Court, has approved and upheld the
methodology settled in Sarla Verma's case to
calculate the multiplier/multiplicand. The
reasoning of the Tribunal, virtually renders otiose
the methodology settled in Sarla Verma's case
and approved by the Constitutional Bench in the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ
2700 (SC)."
12. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the
monthly income of the deceased has to be assessed
Rs.9,000/-. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added
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
[AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.12,600/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the
time of the accident, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the
income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus,
the monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/-. The deceased
was aged about 16 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the
claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,60,800/-
(Rs.6,300 *12*18) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
13. 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'.
14. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), claimant
No.1, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation
of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of filial consortium'.
15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 13,60,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 40,000
Total 14,30,800
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43098
16. In the result, I pass the following order:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.14,30,800/- as against Rs.2,80,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
d) The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining
compensation amount after deducting Rs.2,00,000/- which
has already been deposited by the Corporation, along with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of realization, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA
