Karnataka High Court
Bangarya vs The Managing Director on 29 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
MFA No. 102760 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101944 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MFA NO.102760 OF 2018 (MV)
C/W MFA NO.101944 OF 2020 (MV)
IN M.F.A. NO.102760 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.W.K.R.T.C., HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BUS NO.KA-42/F-990,
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
SAMREEN AYUB ...APPELLANT
DESHNUR
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. BANGARYA KERIYA GOUDA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: MALALI, SIRSI (N.K.)-581450,
(FATHER OF THE DECEASED)
2. KAMALA BANGARYA GOUDA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: MALALI, SIRSI (N.K.)-581450,
(MOTHER OF THE DECEASED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
MFA No. 102760 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101944 of 2020
3. GEETA BANGARYA GOUDA,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MALALI, SIRSI (N.K.)-581450,
(SISTER OF THE DECEASED)
4. GIRIJA BANGARYA GOUDA,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MALALI, SIRSI (N.K.)-581450,
(SISTER OF THE DECEASED)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADV.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.312/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SIRSI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.6,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.101944 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. BANGARYA S/O. KERIYA GOUDA,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: MALALI, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581403.
(FATHER OF THE DECEASED)
2. KAMALA W/O. BANGARYA GOUDA,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: MALALI, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581403.
(MOTHER OF THE DECEASED)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
MFA No. 102760 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101944 of 2020
3. GEETA D/O. BANGARYA GOUDA,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MALALI, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581403.
(SISTER OF THE DECEASED)
4. GIRIJA D/O. BANGARYA GOUDA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MALALI, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581403.
(SISTER OF THE DECEASED)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.W.K.R.T.C., HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BUS NO.KA-42/F-990.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.312/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SIRSI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, UMESH M. ADIGA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
MFA No. 102760 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101944 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and
award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl.
M.A.C.T., Sirsi, in M.V.C. No.312/2016 dated 20.03.2018.
Hence, taken up together for disposal. Though the matter is
slated for admission, with the consent of both the side, it is
taken up for final disposal.
2. Brief facts of the case of both the parties before
the Tribunal are as under. It is case of claimants that on
23.05.2016 at about 11:55 hours, deceased Ganesh
Bangarya Gouda was going on the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-30/R-551 alongwith pillion rider
Manjunath Gouda on Sirsi-Kumta road. The said Ganesh
was riding the motorcycle. They met with an accident due
to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration
No.KA-42/F-990 at Challehole, Bandal. Due to the impact,
both the riders sustained grievous injuries and died. Parents
and sisters of deceased Ganesh filed the claim petition,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of
said Ganesh.
3. The contention of the respondent is that the
accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of
the motorcycle of the deceased. He was not holding licence
to ride the motorcycle. The motorcycle came on the wrong
side of the road and dashed against the bus and caused
accident and therefore, claimants are not entitled for
compensation.
4. The learned Tribunal has framed following
issues:
"1. Whether the petitioner No.1 proves that, on
23.05.2016 that about 11:15 hours, when his
son was proceeding towards ragihosalli through
Sirsi-Kumta road by riding a motorcycle No.KA-
30/R-551 he met with an accident due to the
rash and negligent driving of bus bearing
No.KA-42/F-990 by its driver and due to which
he succumbed to the injuries at the spot?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
2. Whether the respondent prove that he is not
liable to pay the compensation for the reasons
stated in para No.2 of written statement?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the
compensation as claimed by them, if so what is
the quantum and from whom?
4. What order or award?"
5. Claimants on their behalf examined PW1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P10. Respondents examined RW1 and got
marked Exs.R1 to R6.
6. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
appreciating pleadings and evidence on record, awarded
compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- by the impugned judgment
dated 20.03.2018. Same is challenged by both the parties.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for both the parties.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant NWKSRTC
would submit that if we verify the spot mahazar as well as
the copy of the spot of accident, it clearly reveals that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
inspite of sufficient space available, the rider of the
motorcycle went to the middle of the road and dashed
against ongoing bus. It clearly indicates that he was
negligent and had no control over the vehicle. Moreover,
respondent has taken a contention that rider of the
motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence and
during the trial, driving licence of the deceased was not
placed on record to prove that deceased had licence to ride
motorcycle. Both the facts show that due to negligence of
deceased, accident had taken place. The contributory
negligence of rider of motorcycle and driver of bus could be
apportioned in the ratio of 20:80. Hence, prayed to pass
suitable orders. He would further contend that the
respondents examined the driver of the bus as RW1, who
has stated in detail about the accident. Therefore, the
accident was not caused due to the negligence of the driver
of the bus alone, but also due to the contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, as
well as driver of the bus.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the
appellants - claimants has submitted that, in spite of there
being sufficient space towards the left side of the bus, the
driver of the bus came to the wrong side and dashed
against the motorcycle. Therefore, the entire negligence
needs to be saddled on the part of the driver of the bus. He
is charge sheeted to the accident in question. He further
submits that amount of compensation awarded is meager.
Hence, prayed for enhancement.
10. The Tribunal has considered the point of
negligence and held that the accident was taken place due
to the negligence of the driver of the bus and even the
Investigating Officer after investigation, charge sheeted the
driver of the bus for the accident. The said finding is under
serious challenge by the corporation.
11. Let us consider the copy of prosecution papers;
According to Ex.P4, width of the road is about 18 feet and
on both sides of the road, there were foot path / rough road
to an extent of 5 feet. The accident had taken place about
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
8 feet away from the south left side edge of tar road,
towards north. Rider of motorcycle had sufficient space
towards his left side. Leaving the same came near middle
portion of the road. Claimants have not examined any
eyewitness to the incident to substantiate the same. Rider
of motorcycle could have avoided the accident. It indicates
that he had contributed to the accident in question.
Similarly the driver of the bus could have taken his bus to
the northern side of the road and avoided the accident.
However, the photographs produced at Exs.P2 to P6 reveal
that, major contribution is by the driver of the bus.
Considering prosecution papers and evidence of RW1,
contributory negligence for the accident by the rider of the
motorcycle as well as driver of the bus is taken in the ratio
of 20:80; That is the driver of the bus was has contributed
to an extent of 80% in causing the accident and rider of
motorcycle to an extent of 20%. Accordingly, we hold that
both the rider of the motorcycle and driver of the bus had
contributed for the accident in question in the above ratio.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the
deceased was a student studying in 2nd Semester of BBA at
the time of accident. Had he survived, he might have bright
future. However, unfortunately he died in the accident.
Considering the same, we deem it appropriate to consider
the notional income of the deceased on the basis of the
schedule of income prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Service Authority in consultation with the stakeholders. In
the present case, the accident is of the year 2016 and
therefore, the notional income of the deceased could be
taken as Rs.8,750/- per month.
13. Since the deceased was aged about 18 years at
the time of accident, 40% of the income is to be added
towards future prospects, as per the law laid down in the
case of the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others1. It is not in dispute that the deceased
was unmarried and hence 50% of the income needs to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Further, the
2017 ACJ 2700
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
multiplier applicable is 18. Thus, on the basis of said
calculations, the claimants are entitled for compensation
towards 'loss of dependency' at Rs.13,23,000/- (Rs.8,750 +
40% - 50% x 12 x 18).
14. Further, parents of the deceased would be
entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each)
towards 'loss of consortium' and Rs.15,000/- each towards
'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
15. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
7% p.a. Learned counsel appearing for the NWKRTC
vehemently contends that as the normal interest of the
banks is at 6% p.a., the same may be awarded. The said
submission is accepted and the rate of interest is reduced to
6% from 7% as awarded by the Tribunal.
16. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the
following amounts of compensation as follows:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,23,000/-
(Rs.8,750 + 40% - 50% x 12 x 18)
2. Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 x 2) Rs.80,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.14,33,000/-
Less: 20% contributory negligence on Rs.2,86,600/-
the part of the rider of the motorcycle
GRAND TOTAL Rs.11,46,400/-
17. In MFA No.101944/2020, an application was filed
to condone the delay of 770 days in filing the appeal. While
allowing the said application, it is held that the claimants
are not entitled to interest for the delayed period.
Accordingly, to that extent the claimants are not entitled to
any interest for the delayed period of 770 days in filing this
appeal.
18. For the aforesaid discussion, we pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals, M.F.A. No.102760/2018
and M.F.A. No.101944/2020 are disposed
off.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal in MVC No.312/2016 is
modified. The claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.11,46,400/- as against
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4690-DB
Rs.6,50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till its realization
on the enhanced amount of compensation
except the period of delay of 770 days in
filing the appeal in MFA No.101944/2020.
(iii) The NWKRTC is directed to deposit the
compensation along with interest, as
ordered above within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
(iv) The apportionment of compensation and
deposit is as per the order of the Tribunal.
(v) Whatever the amount deposited by the
corporation in this Court shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSH,VNP, CT: UMD
