Karnataka High Court
Smt Chayadevi vs Divisional Controller on 12 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1853
MFA No. 1419 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 1419 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT CHAYADEVI
W/O SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE SATHIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT MUDDANAHALLIKOPPALU
VILLAGE, MALANGI POST, PERIYAPATNA
TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT 571 107 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. K. SUMA, ADV. FOR
SRI. V PADMANABHA KEDILAYA, ADV.)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, CHAMARAJANAGAR
TOWN AND POST
Digitally signed by CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST - 571 213 ...RESPONDENT
MALA K N
Location: HIGH COURT (BY SMT.S. NIRMALA, ADV.)
OF KARNATAKA
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.10/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, PERIYAPATNA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1853
MFA No. 1419 of 2018
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioners have challenged
the judgment and award dated 15.04.2017 passed in
M.V.C.No.10/2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, M.A.C.T, Periyapatna ('the Tribunal' for
short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 14.08.2014 at
1.30 p.m., the daughter of the petitioners by name
Thejaswini, the deceased, while walking on the left
side of the road on Panchavalli-Hunsur-Virajpet road,
she was hit by KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-10/F-0227
killing her at the spot. The petitioners being the
parents of the deceased have approached the
Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.11,50,000/-
The claim was opposed by the respondent/KSRTC.
After taking the evidence, the Tribunal awarded
NC: 2024:KHC:1853
compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- with interest @ 9%
per annum. Pleading inadequacy and seeking
enhancement of compensation, the petitioners have
filed this appeal on various heads.
4. Heard the arguments of Smt.K.Suma,
learned Counsel on behalf of Sri.V.Padmanabha
Kedilaya, learned Counsel on record for the
petitioners and Smt.S.Nirmala, learned counsel for
respondent/KSRTC.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners have produced
the Study Certificate of the deceased that she was
studying in School at the time of accident and she
born on 18.07.1997, but the Tribunal has not
considered this aspect and taken the lesser age.
Accident is of the year 2014, during said period, a
person with no proof of income will earn not less
than Rs.8,500/- per month, but the Tribunal has
NC: 2024:KHC:1853
taken the notional income and she sought for
enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the KSRTC
has contended that the Postmortem report indicates
that the deceased was aged 17 years old and no
person in proof of Ex.P7/school certificate is
examined before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has
rightly taken the income, considered the age and has
rightly assessed the compensation. It is also
contended that the Tribunal has awarded interest @
9% per annum, which is on the higher side and she
sought for modification of interest to 6% per annum
and she has supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and
perused the records.
8. The material on record did point out that
there was an accident on 14.08.2014 involving
NC: 2024:KHC:1853
KSRTC and the deceased, accident, killing her at the
spot. Ex.P10 is the school certificate to the effect
that on the date of accident, the deceased was
studying 1st year PUC. Her date of birth is
mentioned as 18.07.1997. Ex.P10 is issued by the
Government School and its genuineness cannot be
doubted. If that is taken into consideration, the age
of the deceased as on the date of accident was 17
years. The deceased has attained the age of
earning. In the year 2014, a person with no proof of
income will earn not less than Rs.8,500/- per month
whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income on
notional basis at Rs.30,000/- per year i.e.,
Rs.2,500/- per month.
9. In a case of this nature, compensation has to
be determined by following the principles settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Co.Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi and Others1 and Sarla
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC:1853
Varma (Smt.) and Others -vs- Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another2 so also the principle laid
down in Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. -
vs- Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors.3
10. By applying the said principles, by taking
the income at Rs.8,500/- per month, since the
deceased is less than 40 years, future prospects of
40% has to be considered and 50% has to deducted
towards personal expenses of the deceased. Then
the loss of dependency will be Rs.8,500/- +
Rs.3,400/- (40%) = Rs.11,900/- - Rs.5,950/- (50%)
= Rs.5,950/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.12,85,200/-. Under the
conventional heads, a sum of Rs.50,000/- together
to the parents of the deceased towards loss of love
and affection; towards funeral expenses and loss of
estate at Rs.15,000/- each has to be assessed, in all,
Rs.80,000/-. Since the accident is of the year 2014,
nine years has already been lapsed, hence 10% for
(2009) 6 SCC 121
Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023, decided on 27.03.2023
NC: 2024:KHC:1853
every 3 years comes to Rs.24,000/-, thereby
compensation under conventional heads comes to
Rs.1,04,000/-. If it is added, total compensation
comes to Rs.13,89,200/- as against Rs.6,60,000/-
assessed by the Tribunal thereby, petitioners are
entitled for enhancement of Rs.7,29,200/-, which is
the just compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. As regarding rate of interest is concerned,
the Tribunal has exercised discretion in awarding
interest. Since KSRTC has not preferred any appeal,
it is not proper to interfere with the discretion of the
Tribunal. But for the enhanced compensation, it
shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Hence, the
appeal merits consideration. In the result, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:1853
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified;
(iii) The petitioners are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.7,29,200/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum on the
enhanced compensation from the date of
petition till its realization;
(iv) Rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal is kept intact;
(v) The KSRTC is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
(vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM
CT:HS
