Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road vs Sri B Rama Bhat on 19 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
MFA No. 575 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 575 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
(BY SRI S. D. MANJUNATHA-ADV)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI B. RAMA BHAT,
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)
Digitally signed 1. SMT. KAVERAMMA,
by BHARATHI
S W/O RAMA BHAT,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. B. GEETHA,
W/O LATE B. MOHAN BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
3. HARSHITHA,
S/O LATE MOHAN BHAT,
MINOR, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
4. SANTHRIPTHI,
D/O LATE MOHAN BHAT,
MINOR, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
MFA No. 575 of 2014
BOTH ARE MINORS,
REP. BY HIS MOTHER,
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT. B. GEETHA THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ALL ARE R/O BOMMETTI HOUSE,
JALSOOR VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK,
D.K DIST-574 239.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHREEKANTH N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P. KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3 & R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2;
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 5.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.392/2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, PUTTUR, D.K.,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,85,000/- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the KSRTC challenging the
judgment and award dated 5.11.2013 passed in MVC
No.392/2007 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Puttur,
D.K1.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeal are that on 17.10.2006 when M.Mohan
Bhat2 was riding his motor bike, a KSRTC bus came from the
opposite direction and hit the motor bike causing the accident
in question wherein the rider of the motor cycle sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
4. Claiming compensation for he death of the
deceased, his parents, wife and children filed a claim petition
arraying the KSRTC who is the owner cum insurer of the bus as
a respondent to the said proceedings. Claimant No.3 - wife
has been examined as PW.1 and a witness as PW.2. Exs.P1 to
P6 were marked in evidence. The driver of the bus has been
examined as RW.1. The charge sheet has been marked as
Ex.R1 and newspaper clippings have been marked as Exs.R2
and R3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated
15.10.2010 allowed the claim petition and awarded a
compensation of `4,16,000/- together with interest at 6% pa.
5. Being aggrieved, the KSRTC preferred MFA
No.1815/2011. This Court by its judgment dated 26.6.2013
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for
reconsideration. The Tribunal consequent to remand, by its
judgment and award dated 5.11.2013 allowed the claim
petition and awarded a compensation of `3,85,000/- together
with interest at 6% pa. Being aggrieved, the KSRTC has
preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contends that the deceased himself was responsible for causing
the accident in question inasmuch as when he was riding his
motor bike and talking on the phone, he suddenly took a turn
and despite the driver of the KSRTC bus taking the bus to the
extreme left hand side of the road and despite every effort
made by the driver of the bus to avoid the accident, the
deceased himself came and hit the KSRTC bus causing the
accident in question. He further contends that the charge sheet
has been filed against the rider of the motor cycle/deceased.
Hence, he contends that having regard to the fact that the
deceased himself was responsible for causing the accident as is
forthcoming from the material on record, the Tribunal ought not
to have allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
He further submits that the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants
justifies the award of the Tribunal and further relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United
India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Sunil Kumar3.
8. The submissions of both the learned counsel have
been considered and the material on record including the
records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that
arise for consideration are:
i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining
the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section
163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is
excessive?
Re. question No.(i)
9. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that if it is demonstrated that the
accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the
(2019) 12 SCC 398
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
deceased himself, the claim petition claiming compensation for
the death of the deceased will not be maintainable even under
Section 163A of the Act.
10. To consider the contention of the appellant it is
relevant to note Section 163A of the Act, which reads as
follows:
"163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation
on structured formula basis.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act
or in any other law for the time being in force or
instrument having the force of law, the owner of the
motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to
pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to
accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle,
compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to
the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section,
"permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and
extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of
1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1),
the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish
that the death or permanent disablement in respect of
which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful
act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or
vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the
cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from
time to time amend the Second Schedule."
(emphasis supplied)
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
11. The interpretation of Section 163A vis-à-vis the plea
of negligence on the part of the victim was the subject matter
of interpretation by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar3, wherein it has
been held as follows:
"8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of
compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis
of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award
and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made
without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the
driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident.
This is made explicit by Section 163-A(2). Though the
aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a
possible defence of the insurer based on the negligence of
the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to
permit such defence to be introduced by the insurer
and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163-A of
the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go
contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction
of Section 163-A of the Act, namely, final compensation
within a limited time-frame on the basis of the structured
formula to overcome situations where the claims of
compensation on the basis of fault liability were taking an
unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163-A of
the Act to permit the insurer to raise the defence of
negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section
163-A of the Act on a par with the proceeding under
Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-
contradictory but also defeat the very legislative
intention."
(emphasis supplied)
12. The case of Sunil Kumar3 has been followed by
another three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shivaji and another v. Divisional Manager, United
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others4 wherein it has been
held as under:
"4. The issue which arises before us is no longer res
integra and is covered by a recent judgment of three
Judges of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Sunil Kumar [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil
Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398 : AIR 2017 SC 5710], wherein
it was held that to permit a defence of negligence of the
claimant by the insurer and/or to understand Section 163-
A of the Act as contemplating such a situation, would be
inconsistent with the legislative object behind introduction
of this provision, which is "final compensation within a
limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula
to overcome situations where the claims of compensation
on the basis of fault liability were taking an unduly long
time". The Court observed that if an insurer was
permitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section
163-A of the Act, it would "bring a proceeding under
Section 163-A of the Act on a par with the proceeding
under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be
self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative
intention". Consequently, it was held that in a proceeding
under Section 163-A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise
any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to
counter a claim for compensation."
(emphasis supplied)
13. Having regard to the settled proposition of law as
noticed above, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the
claim petition. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration
is answered in the affirmative.
AIR 2018 SC 3705
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
Re. Question No.(ii)
14. With regard to quantum of compensation the same
is required to be awarded as per the chart stipulated under
Schedule II to the Act.
15. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased at `3,000/- pm., deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses, adopted the multiplier of 15 and assessed the loss of
dependency at `3,60,000/-, which is just and proper. The
Tribunal has further awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards love
and affection and `10,000/- for transportation of dead body
and other expenses and `5,000/- towards loss of consortium.
It is forthcoming that as per Schedule II to the Act, it is open to
award a sum of `2,000/- towards funeral expenses, `5,000/-
towards loss of consortium if beneficiary is the spouse and
`2,500/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the compensation
awarded under conventional heads is required to be re-
assessed as stipulated under Schedule II of the Act.
16. Accordingly, the total compensation under various
heads is re-assessed as follows:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
Heads Amount Amount
Sl.No. awarded by awarded by
the Tribunal this Court (`)
(`)
1. For transportation of 10000.00 2000.00
dead body and
funeral expenses
2. Love and affection 10000.00 0.00
3 Loss of consortium 5000.00 5000.00
4. Loss of estate 0.00 2500.00
5. Loss of dependency 360000.00 360000.00
Total 385000.00 369500.00
17. Hence, the claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of `369500/- as against `3,85,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal along with interest at 6% pa. Accordingly, the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced
and question No.(ii) is answered in the affirmative.
18. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 5.11.2013 passed
in MVC No.392/2007 by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, MACT, Puttur, D.K, is modified to the extent
stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment
and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6970
iii) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation
of `3,69,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till its realization;
iv) The amount deposited by the appellant be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the
claimants;
v) The KSRTC shall deposit the balance compensation
amount together with accrued interest within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment;
vi) Consequent to the deposit, the quantum of
compensation be disbursed to the claimants in
terms of the award of the Tribunal;
vi) The Registry to draw the modified decree
accordingly.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ND
