Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Ksrtc vs Girijamma on 2 August, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
MFA No. 3107 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 4615 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3107 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4615 OF 2021(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.3107/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. GIRIJAMA
W/O.LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
[
2. KUMARASWAMY
S/O.LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
3. PRAKASHA
S/O.LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
4. R.VASANTHA
D/O.LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Digitally A-1 TO A-3 ARE R/AT
signed by B KAMMATHMARIKUNTE VILLAGE
LAVANYA
HOTTEPPANAHALI POST
Location:
HIGH CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522
COURT OF
KARNATAKA A-4 IS R/AT HIRIYUR TOWN
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI N.R.RANGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
MFA No. 3107 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 4615 of 2021
2. THE MANAGER
INTERNAL SECURITY FUND
KSRTC HEAD OFFICE
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC.
NO.405/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, CHALLAKERE.
IN MFA NO.4615/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC MANDYA DIVISION
MANDYA-571 401
NOTICE THROUGH-
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAP
MYSURU-570 015
REP.BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GIRIJAMMA
W/O.LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
[
2. KUMARASWAMY
S/O.LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
COOLIE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
MFA No. 3107 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 4615 of 2021
3. PRAKASHA
S/O.LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
COOLIE
A-1 TO A-3 ARE R/AT
KAMMATHMARIKUNTE VILLAGE
HOTTEPPANAHALI POST
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
4. R.VASANTHA
D/O.LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
R/AT HIRIYUR TOWN
...RESPODNENTS
(BY SRI N.R.RANGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC.
NO.405/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, CHALLAKERE.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
MFA.No.3107/2021 is preferred by the appellants-
claimants and MFA.No.4615/2021 is preferred by the
Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated
30.03.2021 passed in MVC.No.405/2019 on the file of the
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Challakere (for short 'the
tribunal'). This appeal preferred by the claimants is
founded on the premise of inadequate and meager
compensation awarded by the tribunal, whereas the
appeal preferred by the Corporation is seeking to set-aside
the judgment and award passed by the tribunal.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the tribunal.
3. The tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.10,27,039/- with interest at 9% per annum and
directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the
compensation.
4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for claimants that the tribunal has committed an error and
illegality in not taking into consideration the materials
placed on record, both oral and documentary. The tribunal
has failed to assess the proper income for computation of
compensation. So also, the tribunal has awarded meager
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
compensation under different heads. Therefore, he seeks
to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the
compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Corporation
vehemently contends that the tribunal has committed a
gross error in awarding exorbitant compensation without
taking into consideration the materials placed on record,
both oral and documentary and so also, the evidence
adduced by the parties. She further contends that the
tribunal has failed to take into consideration the
contributory negligence of the deceased himself. While
crossing the road, he has not bothered to take precautions
and it is because of his negligence, the accident had
occurred. She further contends that the tribunal has
committed an error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal
and living expenses, whereas, it should have been 50% as
the claimants are not the dependants of the deceased and
they were all major, married and well settled. Thirdly, she
contends that the interest component awarded is
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
exorbitantly high and same has to be drastically reduced.
She also contends that as an interim measure, an ex
gratia amount of Rs.15,000/- has been paid, which has to
be deducted from the compensation. On these grounds,
she seeks to allow the appeal preferred by the Corporation
and consequently reduce the compensation.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the material on record, the occurrence of
accident, involvement of vehicle and death having
occurred due to the accident though disputed has been
proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P12.
Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence
against the driver of the KSRTC Bus.
7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,
income and the multiplier to be adopted, it is seen that at
the time of recording of evidence, claimant No.1 has
stated that the deceased was aged between 55 and 60
years. In fact, the Post mortem report at Ex.P7 mentions
the age of the claimant as 50 years. However, the tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
has arrived at the age of the deceased at 56 years and
applied the multiplier at '9', whereas, learned counsel for
Corporation has filed an application under Order XLI Rule
27 read with Section 151 of CPC by producing copies of
Aadhar card and ration card belonging to the deceased,
which clearly depict that the deceased was aged about 70
years. Therefore, the question of taking the multiplier at
'9' may not arise. Hence, the multiplier would have to be
taken at '5'. The tribunal has taken the income at
Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Legal Services
Authority chart prescribes the notional income of
Rs.12,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2018,
in the absence of any proof of income. Accordingly,
Rs.12,500/- is taken. The tribunal has rightly deducted
1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, which does
not call for interference and the same is retained. Under
the circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to
Rs.5,00,040/- (Rs.12,500 - 1/3rd = Rs.8,334/- x 12 x 5)
towards loss of dependency as against Rs.7,20,036/-
awarded by the tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
8. The tribunal has awarded Rs.72,003/- towards
future prospects, which is 10% on amount awarded
towards loss of dependency of Rs.7,20,036/-. However, I
am in agreement with learned counsel for Corporation that
the question of awarding future prospects in this case
would not arise. Therefore, awarding of 10% towards
future prospects by the tribunal is erroneous and the same
is set-aside.
9. The deceased left behind four dependants i.e.,
wife and three children, who are majors. Though claimant
Nos.2 to 4 may not be entitled to loss of dependency, they
are entitled to loss of consortium. As held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in (2017)16 SCC 680, each of the dependants
would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the claimants
would be entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3)
towards loss of consortium, which is rightly awarded by
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
the tribunal. However, as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi as stated
supra, 10% escalation for one block period on the same is
to be awarded, which would be Rs.16,000/-. In all, the
claimants would be entitled to Rs.1,76,000/-
(Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%).
10. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses, which is on the lower side. However,
this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses, in all Rs.30,000/-. However, as per the
aforesaid decision, 10% escalation for one block period on
the same is to be awarded under this head, which would
come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).
11. In view of the above, the claimants would be
entitled to compensation of Rs.7,09,040/-. However, it is
submitted by learned counsel for Corporation that it has
paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ex gratia amount as an
interim measure, which has to be deducted from the said
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
compensation amount Rs.7,09,040/-, which would be
Rs.6,94,040/-.
12. Learned counsel for Corporation relied on the
following two judgments passed by this Court in support of
her case:
i) MFA.Nos.3004/2019 C/w. 5589/2019 [Decided on
09.01.2020];
ii) MFA.Nos.6199/2019 C/w. 6728/2021 [Decided on
13.06.2022];
The Division Bench of this Court in
MFA.Nos.3004/2019 C/w. 5589/2019 stated supra, in
similar situation of pedestrian crossing on the National
Highway, has fastened 25% of contributory negligence as
against the deceased. This Court is in agreement with
learned counsel for Corporation that the deceased while
crossing the road ought to have taken proper care and
caution. Though FIR and chargesheet are laid against the
driver of the Bus, some amount of contributory negligence
has to be fastened as against the deceased for not taking
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
proper care and caution while crossing the road, which is a
National Highway. Under the circumstances, in the present
case also, this Court is of the opinion that 25%
contributory negligence requires to be fastened as against
the deceased. Accordingly, it is fastened.
13. Under the circumstances, the claimants would be
entitled to the reduced compensation amount of
Rs.5,20,530/- as against Rs.10,27,039/- awarded by the
tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
awarded
1. Loss of dependency 5,00,040-00
2. Loss of consortium 1,76,000-00
3. Loss of estate and Funeral expenses 33,000-00
Total 7,09,040-00
Less: Ex gratia amount paid by the 15,000-00
Corporation
Total 6,94,040-00
Less: 25% contributory negligence 1,73,510-00
fastened as against the deceased
TOTAL 5,20,530-00
14. I am in agreement with learned counsel for
Corporation that the interest component awarded by the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
tribunal at 9% p.a. is on the higher side. The same is
reduced to 6% p.a.
15. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are disposed off;
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
30.03.2021 passed in MVC.No.405/2019 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Challakere, is modified;
iii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to the
reduced compensation of Rs.5,20,530/- as
against Rs.10,27,039/- awarded by the
tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till date of deposit;
iv) The balance compensation amount shall be
deposited by the Corporation within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment;
v) In case of excess amount having been
deposited by the Corporation, the same shall
be refunded to the Corporation, upon proper
identification;
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30712
vi) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the claimants as per the
apportionment made by the tribunal by
Electronic transfer to the claimants upon
furnishing the required bank details/upon
proper identification;
vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by
the tribunal shall stand intact;
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
LB
