Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt Shanthakumari on 5 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 98 OF 2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2293 OF 2016(MV-D)
IN MFA CROB.NO. 98 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI
W/O LATE K.SHAMSON,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. K.S.PRASHANTH
S/O LATE K.SHAMSON,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
3. STANLEY.K.S.
S/O LATE K.SHAMSON,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BHADRA BLOCK,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N K.S.R.P POLICE QUARTERS, 8TH BATALLION,
Location: HIGH MACHANAHALLI,
COURT OF SHIMOGGA-577 222.
KARNATAKA
PRESENT ADDRESS OF THE
CROSS OBJECTORS
C/O. S.RAMDAS, NO.306,
BEHIND GANAPATHY TEMPLE,
NEAR NAZIR MUTTON STALL,
LEFT SIDE, 1ST CROSS,
PAPER TOWN POST,
BHADRAVATHI-577 302.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
AND:
1. MOHAMMED FAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED FAROOQ AHAMED,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/O H.NO 23, 'FAROOQ MANZIL'
RABJI GALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
2. SANGAPPA.S.HULLI
S/O LATE SHANKRAPPA HULLI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O 1ST CROSS,
TANK MOHALLA,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, MALLAPPA COMPLEX,
P.B.NO.143, B.H.ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
CHINNASWAMY STADIUM,
RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BANGALORE-01.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA RURAL
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
SAHAYADRI NAGARA,
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KOTHWAL., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:23.01.2020;
SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SMT. VINITA.J.D., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
IN MFA NO.2293 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA RURAL
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
CHINNASWAMY STADIUM,
RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BANGALORE-01.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA RURAL
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
SAHYADRI NAGARA,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.VINITHA.J.D., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DEVENDRAPPA.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI
W/O LATE K.SHAMSON,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. K.S.PRASHANTH
S/O LATE K.SHAMSON,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
3. STANLEY K.S.
D/O LATE SHAMSON,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
ALL THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3,
ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.14,
BHANDRA BLOCK,
KSRP POLICE QUARTERS,
8TH BATTALION, MACHENAHALLI,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
4. SRI. MOHAMMED FAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED FAROOQ AHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O NO.23, FAROOQ MANZIL,
RABJI GALLI,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
5. SRI. SANGAPPA.S.HULLI
S/O LATE SHANKRAPPA HULLI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O 1ST CROSS, TANK MOHALLA,
SHIMOGA CITY-577 201.
6. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
P.B.NO.143, 1STFLOOR,
MALLAPPA COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R5-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:25.10.2017;
SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION
AND THE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL ARE FILED UNDER
SECTION ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AND UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
RESPECTIVELY, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:30.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.678/10 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND AMACT-II,
SHIVAMOGGA.
THE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION
AND THE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL ARE COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
IN MFA CROB 98 of 2017
Sri.P.N.Harish., learned counsel for the cross-objectors,
Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand., learned counsel for respondent No.3
and Smt.Vinita.J.D., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.H.Devendrappa., for respondents 4 & 5 have appeared in
person.
IN MFA No.2293 of 2016
Smt.Vinita.J.D., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Devendrappa.H., for the appellants, Sri.P.N.Harish., learned
counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand.,
learned counsel for respondent No.6 have appeared in person.
2. Though the matters are listed today for admission,
it is heard finally.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts are these:
On the Thirtieth day of November 2009 at about 11:00
am., Shamson and his son were moving from their house
towards hospital in a Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-17-J-
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
6634. It is said that Shamson was riding the scooter in
moderate speed and when they reached in front of Vishwas
Daba, NH-206 near Bilaki Cross, Bhadravathi Town, a TATA
Indica car bearing Registration No.KA-14-A-2914 came in a
rash and negligent manner and hit their scooter. Due to the
forced impact, Shamson and his son fell and sustained grievous
injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Nanjappa Hospital.
Shamson was given treatment for three days at Nanjappa
Hospital. Later, he was shifted to K.M.C Hospital, Manipal.
Despite best and long treatment, Shamson succumbed to
injuries on 03.01.2010 at K.M.C Hospital. Contending that they
are the dependents of Shamson, the claimants filed a claim
petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, respondent No.4 remained
absent before the Tribunal and hence it was placed ex-parte.
Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 appeared through their counsel.
Respondents 2, 3 & 5 filed separate written statement denying
the petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for
dismissal of the Claim Petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:30.11.2015 allowed the claim
petition in part and directed respondents 4 & 5 jointly and
severally to pay the compensation amount. The claimants and
the respondents 4 & 5 have assailed the Judgment of the
Tribunal in these appeals on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers
and also the records with utmost care.
6. The following points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation.
2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the
liability on respondents 4 & 5 to pay the
compensation.
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The Claimants appeal is one for enhancement of
compensation. The grounds urged in the present appeal is that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation
of Rs.12,32,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty Two Thousand
only) towards Loss of dependency. It is contended that the
deceased was a Police Constable and was earning Rs.15,129/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Nine only).
The age of the deceased was 54 years as on the date of
accident, hence the multiplier 11 is to be adopted. Hence, the
amount towards the loss of dependency is as under:
CALCULATION OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
Future prospects:
It is taken into consideration at 15% as per chart because the
age of deceased is between 50 - 60 years.
15,129 X 15% = 2,269
15,129 + 2,269 = 17,398
17,398 divided by 3 = 5,799
17,398 - 5,799 = 11,599
11,599 x 12 x 11 = 15,31,068 Rs.15,31,068
In the present case, the deceased left behind his wife and
two children. Hence, they are entitled to compensation under
the head "Loss of consortium". In view of law laid down by the
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI's case, the interest should be
considered to the loss of consortium at the rate of 10% per
annum for every three years.
40,000 X 10/100 X 2 = Rs.8,000/-
40,000 + 8,000 = Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48,000/- X 3 = Rs.1,44,000/-.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,44,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand only)
towards loss of consortium.
This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.33,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only) towards loss of estate and
transportation of the dead body, funeral and obsequies
ceremonies.
The compensation of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Thousand only) awarded towards Medical Bills remains intact.
8. Accordingly, this Court re-determines the
compensation as under:-
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
1. Towards loss of 15,31,068 Rs.15,31,068/-
dependency
11,599 x 12 x 11
2. Towards loss of 1,44,000 Rs.1,44,000/-
Consortium
3. Loss of estate & 33,000 Rs.33,000/-
transportation of dead
body and funeral and
obsequies.
4. Medical Bills 12,000 Rs.12,000/-
Reassessed Compensation: Rs.17,20,068/-
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
4 & 5 in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that
fastening the liability on the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure
Development Limited is unsustainable in law. She argued by
saying that the KRIDL had taken the Car on a rental basis on
the fatal day. The Car was duly insured with the New India
Assurance Company Limited and hence, the Insurance
Company is liable to pay the compensation.
By way of reply to this contention, counsel Sri.S.V.Hegde
Mulkhand., vehemently contended that the KRIDL was in
exclusive possession of the Car as on the date of the accident.
He argued by saying that in view of Section 2(30) of the Motor
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
Vehicles Act, the KRIDL becomes the owner of the car. Hence,
the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
A good deal of argument is canvassed on ownership of
the Car. Mr.Sheshadri.Y.N, Executive Engineer, KRIDL,
Mangalore was examined as RW3. The relevant portion of the
evidence is extracted as under:
"£Á£ÀÄ ºÁ° FUÀ JQìPÀÄånªï EAf¤AiÀÄgï DV
PÉ.Dgï.L.r.J¯ï £À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ°è G¥À
¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁV PÉ.Dgï.L.r.J¯ï £À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:
30.11.2009 gÀAzÀÄ ¨sÀzÁæªÀwUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä MAzÀÄ ¨ÁrUÉ PÁgÀÄ
¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ.
£ÀªÀÄUÉ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EzÁÝUÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÁªÀÅ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉ
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉݪÀÅ. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¢£ÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ CzÉà jÃw £ÁªÀÅ
¸ÀzÀj PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉݪÀÅ."
If one reads and understands the evidence, it can be
safely concluded that the KRIDL was taking the Car on a rental
basis as and when needed. On the date of the accident also,
the car was taken on a rent. Under such circumstances, it
cannot be held that the KRIDL was in exclusive possession of
the Car. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
MFA.CROB No. 98 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2293 of 2016
about the exclusive possession of the Car by the KRIDL must
necessarily fail. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the
matter and erroneously fastened the liability on respondents 4
and 5. Accordingly, respondents 4 and 5 are exonerated from
the liability to pay the compensation.
It is not in dispute that the Car was insured with the New
India Assurance Company Limited and in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in MUKUND DEWANGAN's case, the
Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the compensation
amount.
10. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. The MFA Cross objection filed by the
claimants is allowed.
The Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by
respondents 4 & 5 is allowed.
The Judgment dated:30.11.2015 passed by
the Court of II Addl. District Court & AMACT-2 at
Shivamogga in M.V.C No.678/2010 is modified to
the extent stated hereinabove.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14162
2. The claimants are entitled for reassessed
compensation of Rs.17,20,068/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lakh Twenty Thousand and Sixty Eight
only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of
the claim petition till the date of realization.
3. The third respondent - Insurance
Company is directed to deposit entire compensation
amount along with 6% interest within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of this Judgment.
4. The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
5. Office is directed to transmit the original
records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
6. The Registry concerned is directed to
refund the amount in deposit in MFA No.2293/2016
to the appellants therein after due identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
