Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road vs Kavitha on 29 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
MFA No. 1505 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 55 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2018
(MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 55 OF 2019 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO. 1505 / 2018
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
KOLAR DIVISION
KOLAR REPERSENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RENUKA H R.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
SUVARNA T 1. KAVITHA
W/O MAHAVEER CHAND
Location: AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF 2. MAHAVEER CHAND
KARNATAKA S/O LAL CHAND,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.331,
GAYATRI BEEDI,
NEAR ESHWARA TEMPLE, OLD TOWN,
MANDYA CITY,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA .,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
MFA No. 1505 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 55 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED28.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.502/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.13,92,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 9%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.BARRED
BY TIME.
IN MFA CROB NO. 55 / 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT KAVITHA
W/O MAHAVEER CHAND,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. SRI MAHAVEER CHAND
S/O LAL CHAND,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D NO.331,
GAYATRI BEEDI,
NEAR ESHWARA TEMPLE,
OLD TOWN, MANDYA CITY,
PIN-571401.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE,
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563101.
2. THE MANAGER
KSRTC, MANDYA DEPOT,
MANDYA 571401.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
MFA No. 1505 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 55 of 2019
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA.NO.1505/2018, FILED U/O. 41
RULE 22 AND 33 OF CPC R/W. SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28/08/2017,
PASSED IN MVC NO.502/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANDYA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL AND MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award, passed in MVC No.502/2015
dated 28.08.2017 passed by the MACT, Mandya,
Insurance company is before this court and claimant filed
Cross objections i.e., MFA.CROB.No.55/2019.
2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of
an amount of Rs.1,31,00,000/-. The case of the claimant
is that on 31.07.2014 the deceased was proceeding
towards Rajkumar layout to attend his tuition classes and
he was riding his motor cycle. At about 4.00 p.m. he was
taking turn on Mysuru-Bengaluru road, a KRSTC bus being
driven in a rash and negligent manner had come from
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
behind and hit the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased
had sustained grievous injuries on the vital organs and
succumbed to death at the spot. According to the
claimants, the deceased was studying in II PUC at the time
of accident and the accident had taken place solely on
account of the rash and negligent driving of KSRTC Bus.
The Respondent-KSRTC has filed a written statement
stating that the deceased was in over speed and in order
to overtake Autorickshaw going ahead of his motor cycle
had hit the auto and then hit the left side wheel of the
bus. The accident was on account of rash and negligence
on the part of the deceased and deceased had no valid
and effective driving license to ride the motor cycle as on
the date of the accident. The court below on the question
of negligence had held that there is contributory
negligence on the part of the claimant and apportioned the
same at 80% on the driver of the KSRTC bus and 20% on
the deceased. While giving such a finding, the court below
had observed that if according to the claimant, impact was
made by KSRTC Bus on the rear side of the motor cycle.
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
There is no damage to motor cycle on the rear side. Ex.P-
3 and P-4 also show that there is a 30ft, scratch mark over
the road and blood stained mud lying on the road. The
deceased also did not exercise the expected care and
caution as he was to cross the road via media between the
road divider so as to go to Rajkumr Badavane. This also
would lead to an inference that the deceased was also
equally responsible in so far as the accident is concerned.
Under such circumstances, the court below held that there
was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
3. When it comes to the compensation, the court
below has granted the compensation as per the table
given below:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 17,28,000/-
2. Transportation charges : Rs. 5,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of love and :
4. Rs. 60,000/-
affection
TOTAL : Rs. 18,03,000/-
Less 20% contributory : Rs. 4,10,600/-
negligence
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
(Rs.3,60,000/- +
Rs.50,000/- already
paid
Total : Rs. 13,92,400/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits
that the court below had observed that the deceased was
equally responsible for the accident, while apportioning the
contributory negligence, it has apportioned only 20% on
the deceased. It is submitted that loss of dependency that
was calculated by the court is without any basis. It is
submitted that court below had made wrong calculation by
adding another Rs.4,000/- as future prospects. Learned
counsel submits that as on the date of the accident, he is
a minor and the counsel has placed before the court, the
SSLC certificate showing the date of birth as 26.06.1997
and date of the accident as 31.07.2014. As on the date of
the accident, he was 17yrs 1 month 4 days old and he is a
minor. Learned counsel submits that both on the
negligence as well as on the compensation, the finding of
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
the court below is contrary to the evidence and the settled
law.
5. Learned counsel for the Cross-objector, the
claimants submits that there is clear evidence on record to
show that there is negligence on the part of the driver of
the KSRTC and there is no negligence on the part of the
deceased. It is submitted that the court below without
considering the fact that the deceased was good in sports
and even have good career, had failed to grant just and
reasonable compensation. It is further submitted that it
is nobody's case that the deceased was a minor. He
submits without there being any pleading, now it is not
open for the insurance company to come up with new
plea. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Sudhir Kumar Rana -Vs- Sudhindra Singh &
others1 and submits that just because he is a minor and
he is not having a driving license that itself cannot be a
ground to hold that there is contributory negligence and
2008 (12) SCC 436
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
also relied on another Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Dinesh Kumar J -Vs- National Insurance
Company Ltd2 and others wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court considered the judgment of Sudhir Kumar Rana's
case referred supra. The learned counsel submits that
fixing the contributory negligence on the deceased was
bad and the compensation that was awarded was not
reasonable.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. First coming to the
contributory negligence, whether the KSRTC has taken the
said plea or not and it is undisputed fact that the deceased
was a minor as on the date of the accident and he was not
having a valid driving license. The Tribunal had
considered the IMV Report, as per the IMV Report, if the
story putforth by the claimant has to be taken into
consideration, the impact was made by the KSRTC Bus on
the rear side of the motorcycle. There ought to have been
2018 (1) SCC 750
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
damage to the motor cycle on the rear side, but there is
no such damage to the motorcycle. As per the Ex.P-3 and
P-4, there is a 30ft scratch mark over the road. The
deceased also did not exercise the expected care and
caution as he was to crossing the road via media between
the road divider so as to go to Rajkumar Badavane. The
court below had opined that the deceased was equally
responsible. This court has also perused the IMV Report,
the compliant given by the sister of the deceased. All
these things clearly shows that there is a contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased. In this case, the
court below erred in apportioning the contributory
negligence at 20% on the deceased. On the facts and
circumstances, this Court is apportioned the contributory
negligence at 40% on the deceased and 60% on the driver
of the KSRTC Bus.
7. Then coming to the income, considering the chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority
and as the accident had taken place in the year 2014,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
notional income is taken at Rs.8,500/-. 40% future
prospects would come Rs.3,400/- i.e., Rs.11,900/-. As
he is bachelor 50% has to be deducted towards personal
expenses. Then his contribution to the family would be
Rs.5,950/-. Under the head of loss of dependency, the
claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.12,85,200/-
(Rs.5,950/- x 12 x 18). As this court has apportioned
the negligence at 40% on the claimant, 60% of
Rs.12,85,200/- is Rs.7,71,120/-. Under the head of loss
of consortium for the parents, this court is granting an
amount of Rs.96,000/- and towards Funeral expenses
Rs.36,000/- is granted. This court also observed that
the calculation that was done by the court as per the
amounts considered by the court is completely wrong
calculation.
8. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
MALATHI AND ANOTHER3, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses.
9. Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount
of Rs.9,13,120/-.
10. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Heads Compensation Compensation
Awarded by Awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 17,28,000/- after deducting
40% of (CN)
12,85,200/- it is
Rs.7,71,120/-
2. Transportation : Rs. 5,000/- 00/-
charges
3. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 10,000/- 36,000/-
4. Loss of love and : Rs. 5,000/- 00/-
affection
5. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 00/- 96,000/-
10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 18,03,000/- 9,13,120/-
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
11. Accordingly, the appeal filed the KSRTC
MFA.No.1505/2018 is partly allowed by reducing the
compensation amount from Rs.13,92,400/- to
Rs.9,13,120/-. It is submitted that an amount of
Rs.50,000/- is already paid by the KSRTC/Appellant. Then
KSRTC/Appellant is now liable to pay Rs.8,63,120/- and
Cross objections Appeal MFA.CROB.No.55/2019 is
dismissed.
ORDER
i) The appeal of KSRTC is partly allowed by
reducing the compensation amount from
Rs.13,92,400/- to Rs.9,13,120/-. KSRTC/
Appellant is now liable to pay Rs.8,63,120/-.
ii) Cross objector Appeal filed by the claimant is
dismissed.
iii) The interest on compensation amount is
reduced from 9% to 6% per annum.
iv) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith
transferred to the court below.
v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8488
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
vi) No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
TS
