Karnataka High Court

Mr Srinivasa vs The Divisional Controller on 1 August, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:30376
                                                           MFA No. 3625 of 2019




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                                BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3625 OF 2019 (MV)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1. MR SRINIVASA
                         S/O LATE KANNAGOUNDER
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                         THYAVAREKOPPA VILLAGE
                         KOTEGANGOORU POST
                         SHIVAMOGGA TALUK.

                      2.    SMT. PUNGAVANA
                            W/O SHRINIVAA
                            AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                            THYAVAREKOPPA VILLAGE
                            KOTEGANGOORU POST
                            SHIVAMOGGA TALUK.
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. ANAND K.S., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by   1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
HEMALATHA A              KSRTC MANDYA DIVISION
Location: HIGH           MANDYA.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      2.    THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
                            K.S.R.T.C DIVISIONAL OFFICER
                            DAVANAGERE DIVISION
                            DAVANAGERE-577002.

                      3.    GUNDAPPA ITAGI
                            S/O SHIVAPPA ITAGI
                            AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                            BUS DRIVER OF KA 11/F/0262
                            R/O DOOLEHOLE VILLAGE
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:30376
                                       MFA No. 3625 of 2019




     HARIHARA TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601
                                      3. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B P RADHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2:
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)


     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.01.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO. 626/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL   SENIOR     CIVIL  JUDGE  AND    AMACT-8,
SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION     AND     SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD


                     ORAL 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 challenging the

judgment and award dated 02.01.2018 passed by the

MACT, Shivamogga in MVC 626/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 13.03.2015, when the deceased

Kanniappa was proceeding from Bhadravathi towards

NC: 2024:KHC:30376

Shivamogga, near Malavagoppa Shugar factor, at that

time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-11-F-262

which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner,

dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the deceased 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. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

denying the averments made in the claim petition. The

respondent No.3, despite service of notice, did not appear

before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

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 the case,

NC: 2024:KHC:30376

examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, and another witness as

PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P15. On behalf of respondents, one witness was

examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely

Ex.R1. 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.997,000/- along with interest at the

rate of 6% p.a. and directed the KSRTC 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:

a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was

aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and had a

monthly income of Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000/- as a Mason.

NC: 2024:KHC:30376

However, the assessment of income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

b) Secondly, 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 is entitled to compensation

of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection

and consortium'.

c) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to allow the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

KSRTC has raised the following counter-contentions:

a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per

month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with

NC: 2024:KHC:30376

supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has

correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

b) Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE

CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017

SC 5157], in cases where the deceased was self-

employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of

the established income towards 'future prospects' is

warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40

years. But the Tribunal has erred in considering 50%.

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence and considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to dismiss the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:30376

9. It is not in dispute that Kanniappa died in the road

traffic accident occurred on 13.03.2015 due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month, but failed to

produce supporting documents to substantiate their claim.

In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has

to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents

occurred in the year 2015, the notional income of the

deceased shall be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m. 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 'PRANAY

SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to

Rs.12,600/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is

appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased

towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to

be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased

NC: 2024:KHC:30376

was aged about 22 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.12,600*12*18*50%) on account of 'loss of

dependency'.

11. 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'.

12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra),

claimants, parents of the deceased are entitled for

compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of

'loss of filial consortium'.

13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

NC: 2024:KHC:30376

Compensation under different Amount in (Rs.) Heads

Loss of dependency 13,60,800

Funeral expenses 15,000

Loss of estate 15,000

Loss of Parental consortium 80,000

TOTAL 14,70,800

Less: Ex-gratia compensation 15,000

Balance 14,55,800

14. In the result, the following order is passed:

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.14,55,800/- as against Rs.997,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

d) The KSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of

filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within