Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri Dasharath on 13 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
MFA No. 461 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 109 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2014 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 109 OF 2014 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 461/2014
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
REPT BY I TS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. F.S.DABALI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. SRI. DASHARATH,
BHARATHI S S/O LATE SHAMBANNA,
Location:
HIGH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. MUTHAMMA,
W/O DASHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
3. SRIKANTH,
S/O DASHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
MFA No. 461 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 109 of 2014
4. KUM. GEETHA,
D/O DASHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
5. KUM. ARATHI,
D/O DASHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
SINCE IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE
5TH RESPONDENT HAS COMPLETED 18 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER & NATURAL
GUARDIAN IS 1ST REPSONDENT
ALL RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING
AT HALLIKHED (B) VILLAGE COLONY,
MURUDONAGARA POST,
HUMANNABAD TALUK,
BIDAR DIST - 585 330.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.10.2013 PASSED
IN MVC NO.6115/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XLI ACMM, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.8,35,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA.CROB 109/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DASHARATHA,
S/O LATE SHAMBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
MFA No. 461 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 109 of 2014
2. SMT. MUTHAMMA,
W/O DASHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
3. SRI. SRIKANTH,
S/O DASHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
4. KUMARI. GEETHA,
D/O DASHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
5. KUMARI. ARATHI,
D/O DASHARATH,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/OF MURDNAGAR HALLIKHED (B)
HUMNABAD TALUK,
MURADNAGARA POST,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 414.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. M. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED IN MFA NO.461/2014
FILED U/O 41, RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W SEC 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6115/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
MFA No. 461 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 109 of 2014
41ST ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA AND MFA.CROB, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the respondent-
BMTC challenging the judgment and award dated
23.10.2013 passed in MVC.No.6115/2013 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-
17)1, challenging the findings of the Tribunal on
liability. The claimant has filed
MFA.CROB.No.109/2014 claiming for enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
herein are referred to as per their ranking before the
Tribunal.
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
3. It is the case of the claimants that, when one
Shrinivasa2 was traveling in the BMTC bus on
09.06.2012, due to the rash and negligent driving of
driver of the bus, the accident was caused wherein
the deceased sustained grevious injuries and
succumbed to the same. Claiming compensation of
the death of the deceased the claimants filed a claim
petition arraying the owner of the bus-BMTC as the
respondent. The respondent entered appearance
before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections.
The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW.1. Exs.P1
to P31 were marked as documents in evidence. No
oral or documentary evidence have been produced on
behalf of the respondents.
4. The Tribunal by its judgment and award
dated 23.10.2013 allowed the claim petition and
awarded compensation of `8,50,000/-. After
deducting the interim compensation of `15,000/- paid
Herein after referred to deceased
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
by the respondent-BMTC, the Tribunal directed that a
sum of `8,35,000/- together with interest at 6%p.a.,
be paid by the respondent-BMTC to the claimant.
5. Being aggrieved, the respondent-BMTC
preferred the above appeal on the ground of
negligence as well as for reduction of compensation.
The claimants have filed the cross-objection seeking
for enhancement of the compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-BMTC
vehemently contended that the accident has occurred
due to negligence of the deceased himself since he has
put his head out of the bus and when the bus in which
deceased was traveling was overtaking another bus,
the accident occurred. It is further contended that
the quantum of compensation is excessive and
required to be reduced.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent justifies the findings recorded by the
Tribunal with regard to negligence and submits that
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is on the lower side and seeks for enhancement of the
same.
8. The submissions of both the learned counsels
have been considered and material on record including
the records of Tribunal have been perused. The
questions that arise for consideration are:
i. "Whether the finding of the Tribunal
negligence is erroneous and liable to be interfered
with".
ii. Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded is required to be enhanced".
Reg.question No.(i)
9. The claimants in the claim petition has
contended that when the deceased was traveling in
the bus, due to the rash and negligent driving by the
drivers of the bus, the accident occurred. The
respondent-BMTC has filed statement of objections
specifically contending that the deceased negligently
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
put his head out side the window when the bus was
overtaking another bus and hence, the accident
occurred. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1.
In the cross-examination of PW.1 a suggestion was
put that, the accident occurred since the deceased put
his head out side of window of the bus, which
suggestion has been denied by PW.1.
10. Apart from the stand taken in the
statement of objections and suggestions put to PW.1,
the contention of the respondent-BMTC that the
accident occurred since the deceased put his head out
of window of the bus is not forthcoming from any
other oral or documentary evidence on record.
11. It is necessary to note that the charge
sheet has been filed against the driver of the bus.
Further the appellant has not examined the driver of
the bus to prove its case.
12. The Tribunal while considering the
contention of the respondent -BMTC has noticed that
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
the oral and documentary evidence on record
demonstrates the case putforth by the claimant and
since the respondent-BMTC has not produced any
documents to contradict the documents of the
claimants, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 with
regard to the negligence of driver of the bus in the
'affirmative'.
13. In view of the aforementioned, upon a
re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the appellant has failed in demonstrating
that the finding of the Tribunal is in any manner
erroneous or contrary to any specific material on
record. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal is just and
proper and is not liable to be interfered with in the
present appeal. The question No.(i) framed for
consideration is answered in the 'affirmative'.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
Reg. question No.(ii)
14. The deceased was aged 12 years as on the
date of the accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier
is '18' as has been assessed by the Tribunal.
15. The deceased was stated to be a fitter cum
diploma student. However, no documents have been
produced to prove the income. The Tribunal has
assessed the income as `5,000/- as claimed in the
claim petition.
16. Having regard to the fact that the claimant
has not produced any documents to prove income, the
same is required to be re-assessed as notional income
as per the chart used for settlement of cases in
Lok-Adalath by the Legal Services Authority and
having regard to the date of accident the income is
re-assessed at `7,000/-.
17. Although the learned counsel for the
respondent-BMTC vehemently contended that the
income averred by the claimant in the claim petition
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
being `5,000/-, the assessment of income ought to be
restricted to the said amount and not to be
re-assessed as `7,000/-, having regard to the fact that
the legislation is a beneficial one and the income for a
non-earning person i.e., the notional income being
assessed as aforementioned is just and proper that
the income be re-assessed at `7,000/-.
18. The deceased is a bachelor. Although the
learned counsel for the claimants vehemently
contended that there are large number of dependents
and the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th towards
his personal expenses, it is relevant to note that the
claimant No.1 and 2 are the parents, claimant No.3 is
the brother and claimant Nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters.
There is no evidence forthcoming from the testimony
of PW.1, that other family members were dependent
on the income of the deceased. Hence, having regard
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of SARALA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS V/S
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND
ANOTHER3, the personal expenses are taken as 50%.
40% is required to be added towards future prospects,
having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED -V- PRANAY SETHI &
OTHERS4.
19. The income for the purpose of calculation of
loss of dependency is re-assessed as
(`7,000-50%=`3,500+40%=`3,500+`1,400)=`4,900/-.
20. The loss of dependency is re-assessed as
follows (`4900 X 12 X 18)=`10,58,400/-.
21. The loss of consortium is required to be
awarded to the claimants except the brother who is
the claimant No.3. Hence, consortium is re-assessed
as (`44,000 X 4)= `1,76,000/-.
(2009) SCC 121.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
22. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
`10,000/- towards transportation of dead body. It is
enhanced to `16,500/-.
23. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
`20,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same is
reduced to `16,500/-
24. Hence, the total compensation is
re-assessed as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount Amount
awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal (`
`) Court (`
`)
1. Towards Loss of 810000.00 1058400.00
dependency
2. Towards loss 10000.00 176000.00
consortium
3. Towards funeral 20000.00 16500.00
expenses
4. Towards 10000.00 16500.00
transportation of
dead body
Total 850000.00 1267400.00
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
25. Total compensation amount re-assessed is
`12,67,400/- as against `8,50,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. Hence, enhanced amount is `4,17,400/-
which is rounded off as `4,18,000/-.
26. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
(i) MFA.No.461/2014 is dismissed.
(ii) MFA.CROB.No.109/2014 is allowed.
(iii) The judgment and award dated 23.10.2013
passed in MVC.No.6115/2013 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-
17), is modified to the extent stated herein. In all
other aspects, the judgment and award of the
Tribunal remains unaltered;
(iv) The claimants are entitled to an
enhancement of `4,18,000/- together with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of payment in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal which
shall be paid by the appellant in
MFA.No.461/2014-BMTC.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6101
(v) The amount deposited in MFA.No.461/2014
shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for
disbursement in terms of award passed by the
Tribunal
(vi) The appellant in MFA.NO.461/20114-BMTC
shall deposit before the Tribunal the balance
compensation awarded by the Tribunal as
enhanced by this Court together with accrued
interest within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
(vii) The compensation enhanced by this Court
shall be disbursed equally to claimant Nos.2, 4
and 5.
(viii) The award of the Tribunal with regard to
deposit shall be in terms of award of the
Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PHM
