Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Smt Kousalya Murthy D R on 19 April, 2024

                                                       -1-
                                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:15619
                                                                    MFA No. 4000 of 2016




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
                                    MFA NO. 4000 OF 2016 (MV-D)
                       BETWEEN:

                       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
                       BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
                       TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                       CENTRAL OFFICE, K.R.ROAD
                       SHANTHINAGAR
                       BANGALORE-560 027                          ... APPELLANT

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

                       AND:

                       1.     SMT KOUSALYA MURTHY D R
                              W/O LATE D.V.RAMAMURTHY
                              AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

                       2.     SRI.D.R.RAJESHKUMAR
                              S/O LATE D.V.RAMAMURTHY
                              AGEDABOUT 48 YEARS

Digitally signed by           BOTH ARE R/AT NO.37
HARIKRISHNA V                 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS
Location: HIGH COURT          D GROUP LAYOUT
OF KARNATAKA                  SRIGANDADA KAVALU
                              BANGALORE-560 091
                              AND ALSO AT NO.2142/14
                              8TH MAIN ROAD, D BLOCK
                              GAYATHRINAGAR
                              RAJAJINAGAR
                              BANGALORE-560 010              ... RESPONDENTS

                       (BY SRI.B.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.)

                            THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
                       AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2016
                       PASSED IN MVC NO.6656/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII
                                  -2-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:15619
                                                   MFA No. 4000 of 2016




ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XXI ACMM, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.7,15,516/- WITH INTEREST AT 9%
P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN
TRIBUNAL.

     THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 18.03.2024 AND COMING        ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

In this appeal, B.M.T.C. has challenged the

judgment and award dated 03.03.2016 in

M.V.C.No.6656/2013 passed by the XXI A.C.M.M.,

XXIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and M.A.C.T.,

Bengaluru (SCCH-25) ('the Tribunal' for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties

shall be referred to as per their status before the

Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, one

D.V. Ramamurthy, the husband of petitioner No.1

and father of petitioner No.2 ('the deceased' in

short) on 04.09.2013 at about 07:45 pm while

standing at Sunkadakate Bus stop, Bengaluru City, a

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

B.M.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01/F-3793 dashed

against the deceased and injured him. He was

treated at Rama Hospital and also at Essential

Hospital. He has underwent surgery and discharged

on 25.09.2013. In spite of better treatment, he

could not survive and he succumbed to death on

14.10.2014 due to the injuries sustained in the

accident. The petitioners claiming to be the

dependants, have approached the Tribunal for grant

of compensation of Rs.13,38,000/- claiming that the

deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by

doing self-employment. Claim was opposed by the

B.M.T.C. The Tribunal after taking evidence and

hearing both the parties, allowed the claim petition

awarding compensation of Rs.7,15,515/- with 9%

interest p.a. Challenging the same, B.M.T.C. has

filed this appeal on various grounds.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri. D. Vijaya

Kumar, learned counsel for B.M.T.C. and

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

Sri. B.M. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the

petitioners.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for

B.M.T.C. that when the bus came to Sunkadakatte

Bus Stop, it was loaded with passengers, whereas

the deceased came running in order to board the

bus, he fell down and sustained the injuries; the

injuries sustained by the deceased was not on

account of involvement of the B.M.T.C. bus;

complete negligence is on the part of the deceased,

but the Tribunal did not consider the same; the

deceased was aged 82 years, he was not in the age

of earning; in spite of it, the Tribunal assessed the

income at Rs.7,000/-, affected 1/3rd deduction and

awarded loss of dependency; the income assessed

towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses,

loss of consortium and medical expenses are on the

higher side and there is no question of assessing

compensation under loss of dependency; the

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

Tribunal committed error and he sought for

interference.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the

petitioners have contended that at the time of

accident, the deceased though aged 82 years, he

was doing self-employment and earning Rs.10,000/-

per month; the deceased has not attempted to board

the bus, the bus hit against the deceased and caused

him the injuries; the accident took place at about

08:00 pm and by 10:15 pm, the complaint was filed

to the Police; the post-mortem report clearly points

out the age as well as cause of death of the

deceased; there is no negligence or contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased; the Tribunal

has rightly appreciated the evidence and attributed

complete negligence against the driver of the bus.

According to learned counsel, age is not a barrier for

earning livelihood; the deceased was hale and

healthy and he was earning and maintaining his

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

dependant wife; the accident is of the year 2013 and

in spite of the evidence that the deceased was

earning Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal has taken his

income at Rs.7,000/- which is not proper; a sum of

Rs.4,18,000/- was spent towards medical expenses,

but the amount awarded is on the lower side and he

sought for interference.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed on both sides and also perused

the records.

8. The material on record points out that there

was an accident at Sunkadakatte Bus Stop at

07:45 pm of 04.09.2013 involving the deceased and

the B.M.T.C. bus. According to B.M.T.C., the

deceased came running to board the bus, fell down

and sustained the injuries. The bus was not involved

in the accident. Contrary to this, the petitioners

have produced F.I.R., complaint, spot sketch, spot

mahazar, inquest mahazar, post-mortem report,

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

I.M.V. report, charge sheet as per Exs.P1 to P6. The

recitals of Exs.P1 to P6, so also the evidence of

driver of the B.M.T.C. bus who is examined as RW-1

did point out that the accident had not occurred due

to the deceased attempting to board the bus. For

the reason of the bus ran over on the left leg of the

deceased, he fell down and sustained the injuries at

the Bus Stop. The mahazar and the sketch clearly

point out that the accident took place on the

extreme border of the road. No evidence is available

on record to attribute negligence or contributory

negligence against the deceased. The argument of

the B.MT.C. is not persuasive to accept its version of

negligence or contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased.

9. The Tribunal has awarded compensation

under the following heads:

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

Sl. No. Particulars Rs.

1 Loss of dependency 2,80,000 2 Loss of love and affection 50,000 3 Funeral expenses 25,000 4 Transportation of dead body 10,000 5 Loss of estate 14,000 6 Loss of consortium 50,000 7 Loss of future prospects 2,86,515 Total 7,15,515

10. The Tribunal considered the age of the

deceased at 82 years, income at Rs.7,000/-,

deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied

'5' multiplier in arriving loss of dependency at

Rs.2,80,000/-. The medical expenses has been

calculated by the Tribunal at Rs.2,86,515/-, where

among the medical bills, it is demonstrated that a

sum of Rs.20,000/- was spent on 18.10.2013,

whereas the deceased died on 14.10.2013 itself.

Therefore, Rs.20,000/- has to be taken out from the

medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal. Thus,

medical expenses stands at Rs.2,66,515/-.

11. No doubt petitioner No.1 is the wife aged

72 years, petitioner No.2 is the major son aged 45

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

years; petitioner No.2 cannot be treated as a

dependant of 82 year old father. Petitioner No.1

being the wife she has to be treated as a dependant.

At the age of 82, the deceased met with an accident.

At this age, a person has to maintain his health by

spending more money. Therefore, 50% has to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased

instead of 1/3rd deducted by the Tribunal. The

Tribunal has taken the notional income at

Rs.7,000/-. Having regard to the minimum wages

and earning capacity of the deceased, in the year

2013, it is proper to take the notional income at

Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.7,000/-. Then, loss of

dependency will be Rs.8,000/- - Rs.4,000/- (50%)

= Rs.4,000/- x 12 x '5' multiplier = Rs.2,40,000/-.

Towards conventional heads, Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of consortium to the wife, Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of love and affection to the son, Rs.15,000/-

each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is

considered. In all, compensation under conventional

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

heads comes to Rs.1,10,000/-. Since the claim is 10

year old, 30% appreciation for compensation under

conventional heads has to be given in view of the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National

Insurance Co.Ltd. -Vs- Pranay Sethi and

Others1. Then, the appreciation comes to

Rs.33,000/- (Rs.1,10,000/- x 30%) and the

compensation under conventional heads comes to

Rs.1,43,000/-. Thus in all, the petitioners are

entitled to compensation as follows:

    Sl. No.             Particulars                         Rs.
       1       Loss of dependency                         2,40,000
       2       Conventional heads                         1,43,000
       3       Medical expenses                           2,66,515
                           Total                         6,49,515


Total     compensation      comes        to      Rs.6,49,515/-     as

against       Rs.7,15,515/-,       thereby          reduction      of

Rs.66,000/-. This is the just compensation that the

petitioners are entitled to in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(2017) 16 SCC 680

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

12. Adverting to the rate of interest is

concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9%

p.a. No doubt that in the year 2013, no bank was

paying interest at 9% p.a. A case of accident shall

not be a bonanza for the petitioners and burden to

the B.M.T.C. In this regard, the Division Bench of

this Court in Ms. Joyeeta Bose and Ors. -Vs-

Venkateshan. V and Ors.2 with reference to

Section 149(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 253

of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Section

34 of Civil Procedure Code, at Para 52 has laid down

principles regarding award of interest, it reads thus:

"52.Thus, under Section 34 of CPC being squarely applicable to the interest awarded by the tribunal and Section 34 empowering the tribunal to award pendente lite interest and discretion being vested with the Court/tribunal to award interest from the date of suit or petition is to the maximum extent of 6% p.a. or in other words, not exceeding 6% p.a., the contention raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the Insurance Company deserves to be accepted

M.F.A.No.5896/2018 c/w M.F.As.No.4444/2018 and 4659/2018 (MV), decided on 24.08.2020

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:15619

and accordingly, it is accepted. . . . . . . . . . . ."

In view of the settled principles, it is reasonable to

award interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly, the

petitioners are entitled to the interest at 6% p.a. on

the total compensation. Hence, the appeal merits

consideration, in the result, the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) Impugned judgment and award is modified;

iii) The petitioners are entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,49,515/- instead of Rs.7,15,515/- with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization;