Karnataka High Court
Smt Halubai vs Mahesh F Kashappanavar on 5 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
MFA No. 6518 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 6518 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT HALUBAI
W/O LATE MALYANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
2. PUSHPABAI
D/O LATE MALYANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
3. POORNIMABAI
D/O LATE MALYANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
4. SATHISHA NAIKA
S/O LATE MALYANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
5. SANTHOSHA NAIKA
S/O LATE MALYANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
Digitally signed by
HARIKRISHNA V
ALL ARE R/O V L NAGARA
Location: HIGH COURT TANGALI POST, KASABA HOBLI
OF KARNATAKA
KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DIST. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SATISH R. GIRJI., ADV.)
AND:
1. MAHESH F KASHAPPANAVAR
S/O PHAKEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
DIRVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING
REG. NO.KA-18/F-1901
KUMUTA DEPOT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
MFA No. 6518 of 2017
R/O JAMKHAN GALLI
NAVALAGUNDA TOWN
DHARWADA DISTRICT - 580 001
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC DIVISION OFFICE, SIRASI
DIVISION SIRASI - 581 401
3. THE MANAGER DIRECTOR
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD
RC OWNER OF THE KSRTC
BUS BEARING REG NO.KA.81/F.1091
BANGALORE - 560 027 ...RESPONDENTS
s
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.10.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.07.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.120/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, KADUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioners have challenged
the judgment and award dated 17.07.2015 in
M.V.C.No.120/2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and M.A.C.T., Kadur ('the Tribunal' for short).
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, one Malyanaika,
the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of
petitioners No.2 to 5 (in short, 'the deceased') while
riding his bicycle on 22.07.2009 at about 10:00 am
at NH-206 near Tangali Thandya on the left side of
the road, was hit by a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-18/F-1091 and consequently he
sustained injuries. The deceased was provided with
first-aid at Government Hospital, Kadur. During the
transit to the hospital at Shivamogga, he succumbed
to death. Claiming that the deceased was
Agriculturist and Coolie, earning Rs.7,500/- per
month and the petitioners are the dependants on his
earnings, they have sought for compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- before the Tribunal. Claim was
opposed by the K.S.R.T.C. on the ground that the
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
deceased himself has dashed against the moving bus
in order to cross the road and he suffered injuries on
account of his own negligence. The Tribunal after
taking the evidence and hearing both the parties,
assessed compensation of Rs.5,25,500/-; after
deducting interim compensation of Rs.15,000/-,
awarded Rs.5,10,500/- with 8% interest p.a.
Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the
petitioners have filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Satish R. Girji,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that in the year 2009, a person with
no proof of income will earn not less than Rs.5,000/-
per month, but the Tribunal did not consider the
same, so also the addition of future prospects and
assessed lesser income; in spite there are 5
dependants, 1/3rd has been deducted towards
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
personal expenses; compensation awarded under
conventional heads is inadequate and he sought for
enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
K.S.R.T.C. has contended that the petitioners have
not produced any document to show the income of
the deceased; the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income; petitioners No.2 to 5 are the major children
and they are not dependants of the deceased;
hence, the Tribunal has rightly affected deduction;
compensation awarded under conventional heads is
adequate. It is further contended that the interest
awarded at 8% is on the higher side as no banks will
offer interest at such rate, therefore it has to be
modified and she supported the impugned judgment
in other aspects.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused
the records.
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
8. The material on record points out that there
was an accident on 22.07.2009 at 10:00 am when
the deceased being cyclist while going on the left
side of the road on NH-206 at Tangali Thandya, the
K.S.R.T.C. bus hit on the hind portion of the bicycle,
causing him the injuries. Due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, the deceased succumbed
to death. For the actionable negligence on the part
of the driver of the bus, Kadur Police have charge
sheeted the driver of the bus for the offence
punishable under Sections 279 and 304 (a) of I.P.C.
in C.C.No.802/2009. There is no contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased. Ex.P5 is the
spot sketch which clearly points out that at the place
of accident, the width of the road is 24 ft., wherein
the bicycle was on the extreme left side of the road.
Hence, the actionable negligence cannot be
attributed against the deceased. Contrary, the
material on record points out that the negligence is
on the part of the driver of the bus.
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
9. The petitioners claim that the deceased was
an Agriculturist and Coolie. To explain the income of
the deceased, they have not produced any document
except Ex.P25/the ration card. The accident is of the
year 2009. Having regard to the minimum wages
and earning capacity of the deceased who died at
the age of 53 years, his notional income has to be
taken not less than Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, his
income is taken. In post-mortem report, the age of
the deceased is shown as 44 years, whereas
Ex.P20/Election ID Card points out that the deceased
was born in the year 1956. Then, in the year 2009,
his age will be 53 years and the applicable multiplier
for the age of 53 is '11'. In a case of this nature,
principles of assessment of compensation is settled
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. -Vs.- Pranay Sethi and Others1, Sarla
Varma (Smt.) and Others -Vs.- Delhi Transport
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
Corporation and Another2 and Shri Ram General
Insurance Co. Ltd. -Vs.- Bhagat Singh Rawat &
Ors.3. By applying these principles, compensation
towards loss of dependency and conventional heads
has to be assessed.
10. Petitioners No.2 to 5 are the children. They
are aged in the range of 19 to 23 years. Since they
are major children, the wife of the deceased alone
can be treated as a dependant and 1/3rd has to be
deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased. The deceased since falls within the age
range of 50 to 60 years and self-employed, future
prospects of 10% has to be added to his notional
income. Then, loss of dependency will be Rs.5,000/-
+ Rs.500/- (10%) = Rs.5,500/- - Rs.1,833/- (1/3 rd)
= Rs.3,667/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.4,84,044/-. Under
conventional heads, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium to the wife, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
(2009) 6 SCC 121
Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023, decided on 27.03.2023
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
filial love to the children, Rs.15,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate has to be
assessed. The compensation under conventional
heads comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. The claim is 14
years old. Hence, if 10% is appreciated for every 3
years, i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- x 40% = Rs.48,000/-,
then compensation under conventional heads stands
at Rs.1,68,000/-. Thereby, total compensation
comes to Rs.6,52,044/- as against Rs.5,25,500/-,
thereby enhancement of Rs.1,26,544/-. This is the
just compensation that the petitioners are entitled to
in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not
in dispute that K.S.R.T.C. has already paid interim
compensation of Rs.15,000/-.
11. As regarding rate of interest is concerned
The Tribunal has exercised its discretion in awarding
8% interest p.a. Since the K.S.R.T.C. has not filed
any appeal, it is not proper to interfere with it.
Insofar as enhanced compensation is concerned, it is
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14355
just and proper to award interest at 6% p.a.
Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration, in the
result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The impugned judgment and award is
modified;
(iii) The petitioners would be entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,26,544/-
minus Rs.15,000/- paid as interim
compensation i.e., Rs.1,11,544/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum,
excluding interest for the delayed period
of 672 days;
(iv) The K.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment;
(v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
