Karnataka High Court
The K.S.R.T.C vs Indumathi on 3 January, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6583 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2020 (MV-D),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1829 OF 2020 (MV-D),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5488 OF 2021 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.6583 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. DRAKSHAYINI
W/O LATE CHIKKANNA.C @ CHIKKEGOWDA,
41 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O NO.632, HOOTAGALLI,
HUNSUR ROAD, MYSORE.
PRESENTLY R/O KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HALLIMYSORE HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
Digitally
signed by B 2. MANJUNATHA C
LAVANYA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA.C @ CHIKKEGOWDA,
Location: 22 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF 3. C.ANJU
KARNATAKA
D/O LATE CHIKKANNA.C @ CHIKKEGOWDA,
19 YEARS,
4. DODDAMMA
W/O CHIKKEGOWDA,
63 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O NO.632, HOOTAGALLI,
HUNSUR ROAD, MYSORE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
PRESENTLY R/O KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HALLIMYSORE HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
MYSURU RURAL DIVISION,
BANNIMANTAPA, HANUMANTHANAGARA,
MYSURU
R/BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC,
HASSAN DIVISION,
HASSAN-573 201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1959/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., M.A.C.T., HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.333 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE K.S.R.T.C.
CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE
K H ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER
BY THE DIVISION CONTROLLER, MYSURU.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
AND:
1. INDUMATHI
W/O LATE RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2. KISHORE
S/O LATE RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
3. SAGAR
S/O LATE RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
4. SEETHAMMA
W/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
5. JAVAREGOWDA
S/O LATE KULLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O KALAMMANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
DALIGRAMA HOBLI
K R NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-570001
PRESENT R/O HALLIMYSORE VILLAGE AND HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573211
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIDHARA V R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 & R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1958/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.10,78,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
IN MFA No.1829 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
MYSURU RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAPA
HANUMANTHNAGAR, MYSUU
THEKSRTC
CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE
K H ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560027
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DRAKSHAYINI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKANNA C @ CHIKKEGOWDA
2. MANJUNATHA C
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA C @ CHIKKEGOWDA
3. C ANJU
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
D/O LATE CHIKKANNA C @ CHIKKEGOWDA
4. DODDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
ALL ARE R/O NO.632
HOOTAGALLI
HUNSUR ROAD
MYSURU-577101
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
PRESENTLY R/O KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HALLIMYSORE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573211
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.28.02.2019, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1959/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., AND MACT, HOLENARASIPURA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.10,78,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 9 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA No.5488 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. INDUMATHI
W/O LATE RAMESH, 39 YEARS,
2. KISHORE
S/O LATE RAMESH, 23 YEARS,
3. SAGAR
S/O LATE RAMESH,
AGED 20 YEARS,
4. SEETHAMMA deleted vide order
W/O JAVARAREGOWDA dtd.14.12.2023
60 YEARS,
5. JAVARAGOWDA
S/O LATE KULLEGOWDA,
63 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT KALAMMANAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
SALIGRAMA HOBLI, K.R.NAGARA TALUK,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
MYSORE DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY R/O HALLYMYSORE VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
MYSURU RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAPA
HANUMANTHANAGARA, MYSURU
R/BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC,
HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE )
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1958/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., M.A.C.T, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred by the claimants and
Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the judgment and award
dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, MACT,
Holenarasipura (for short 'the Tribunal') in
MVC.Nos.1958/2017 and 1959/2017.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
2. The claimants have preferred two appeals
seeking enhancement of compensation being dissatisfied
with the meager amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, whereas the Corporation has preferred two
appeals to set aside the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal in both the cases i.e., MVC Nos.1958/2017
and 1959/2017.
3. Parties to the appeals shall be referred to as per
their status before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 23.05.2017 at 3.45 p.m, one person by name
Ramesh along with another person by name Chikkanna @
Chikkegowda were traveling on a motor bike bearing
Registration No.KA-09-EE-1489 in front of Renukacharya
School at Karpooravalli village, K.R.Nagar Taluk. At that
time, the bike was ridden by Ramesh and the pillion rider
was Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda, when they reached in
front of the school mentioned above, a KSRTC bus bearing
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
No.KA-09-F-3255 driven by it's driver in a rash and
negligent manner, came from opposite side with high
speed and dashed against the bike ridden by the rider
Ramesh. Due to the impact of the collision between the
bus and the motor bike, the rider Ramesh and pillion rider
Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda fell down from the bike and
sustained severe grievous injuries. Ramesh sustained
grievous injuries to his forehead, near the right eye, upper
lip, right leg, left shoulder, head and other parts of the
body. Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda also sustained grievous
injuries to his forehead, left leg, right elbow, eyes, nose,
mouth, head and other parts of the body. Both the
persons rider as well as pillion rider while being taken to
the Government hospital succumbed to the injuries.
5. The legal representatives of the rider Ramesh
filed a claim petition in MVC No.1958/2017 claiming
compensation and legal representatives of Chikkanna @
Chikkegowda filed a claim petition in MVC No.1959/2017
claiming compensation.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
6. It is the case of the claimants in both the cases
that the deceased Ramesh was an agriculturist by
profession, he was doing agricultural activities and
earning income of Rs.15,000/- p.m. He was the sole
bread winner of the family and maintaining his family on
the income earned by him. In the case of Chikkanna @
Chikkegowda, claimants pleaded that he was a driver by
profession working as a lorry driver and was earning
Rs.20,000/- p.m and he was the sole bread winner and
taking care of the livelihood of himself and his family. In
both the cases, the claimants pleaded that they spent
about Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and obsequies
ceremonies and the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus and hence, they
are entitle to compensation.
7. On issuance of notice, the respondent appeared
before the Court and filed detailed statement of objections
contending that the claim petition is not maintainable and
pleaded that the accident was not caused due to the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
negligence or fault of the bus driver and compensation
claimed by the claimants was excessive in collusion with
the police authorities and the doctor. It was also pleaded
that the rider of the motor bike was not possessing a valid
and effective driving license as on the date of occurrence
of the accident. It was also pleaded that the accident
occurred due to the negligence and rashness of the rider
of the motor bike rather than that of the bus driver.
Accordingly, pleaded that there was no liability on behalf
of Corporation (KSRTC) and sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed relevant issues for consideration which are as
under:
Issues in MVC 1958/2017
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the
deceased Ramesha sustained injuries and
died in an accident, which was occurred on
23.05.2017 at about 3.45 p.m. near
Renukacharya School, Karpooravalli,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
K.R.Nagar Taluk, due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA-09-3255?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, at what quantum and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
Issues in MVC No.1959/2017
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the
deceased Chikkanna.C @ Chikkegowda
sustained injuries and died in an accident,
which was occurred on 23.05.2017 at
about 3.45 p.m, near Renukacharya
School, Karpooravalli, K.R.Nagar taluk,
due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-
09-F-3255?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, at what quantum
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
9. In order to substantiate the issues and prove
the cases, three witnesses were examined and common
evidence recorded in both the cases namely, PW.1 being
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
the wife of deceased Ramesh in the case of MVC
No.1958/2017. PW.2 namely Smt. Drakshayini wife of Late
Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda and one Sri. Palaksha, who
was examined as an eye witness to the accident and 25
documents came to be marked as Exs.P.1 to 25 in support
of the claimants. Whereas the driver of the KSRTC bus
was examined as RW.1 and conductor of the KSRTC bus
was examined as RW.2 and 16 documents came to be
marked on behalf of the respondents as Exs.R.1 to 16.
10. Based on the material evidence both oral and
documentary, the tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.10,78,000/- in MVC No.1958/2017 and Rs.10,78,000/-
in MVC No.1959/2017 along with interest at the rate of
9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The liability in both the claim petitions was fixed on the
respondent-Corporation and it was directed to deposit the
compensation within 30 days from the date of award and
other conditions were imposed by the Tribunal.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
11. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the claimants that in both the cases the
Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager
compensation and has not taken into consideration the
income of the deceased in both the cases and thereby
while awarding compensation there is miscarriage of
justice. It is further contended that Tribunal has erred in
not awarding suitable compensation under the head of
consortium, so also under the conventional heads. She
further contends that the Tribunal has committed an error
in not including the future prospects while computing the
compensation and thereby severe injustice has caused to
the claimants. It is also contended that on the whole, the
Tribunal has erred in passing arbitrary award which
requires suitable enhancement in the interest of justice
and to give justice to the claimants who are the legal
representatives of the deceased.
12. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
Corporation vehemently contends that the compensation
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side contrary to
the material evidence placed on record both the oral and
documentary, he contends that the Tribunal has failed to
take into note the contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased in both the cases as they were traveling in a
high speed. The Tribunal also failed to take into
consideration that the smoke emanating from the nearby
location of the accident which caused the driver of the bus
to stop the bus and the two wheeler ridden by the
deceased with pillion rider came and dashed against the
bus thereby if not the entire negligence, contributory
negligence requires to be fastened against the rider and
pillion rider of the motor bike. It is also contended that
photographs and sketch produced before the Court clearly
depict that the accident occurred in the middle of the road.
Photographs marked at Ex.R.10 to 13 and Spot sketch
marked at Ex.P.6 go to show that there is no fault on
behalf of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the entire
negligence and liability cannot be fastened on the driver of
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
the bus thereby implicating the insurance company
consequently. Hence, he seeks to set aside the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal in both the cases.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for both the
parties and having perused the impugned judgment of the
tribunal, having looked at the original records, it is not in
dispute that the accident occurred on 23.05.2017 at
around 3.45 p.m, when the rider of the motor bike met
with the accident by head on collision with the KSRTC bus
in which Ramesh being the rider of the bike and Chikkanna
@ Chikkegowda being the pillion rider sustained grievous
injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The
occurrence of the accident and involvement of these two
motor vehicles is not in dispute, so also death having been
occurred as a result of the accident on the way to the
hospital is also not in dispute.
14. To substantiate this aspect of occurrence of
accident, Ex.P.1 to 9 are produced in both the cases which
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
are the police records wherein the complaint is registered
and FIR is filed and after investigation, charge sheet is
filed against the driver of the bus. The Post mortem
report, spot sketch, seizure mahazar also been produced
as police records. Hence, there is no dispute that the
accident occurred on the relevant date involving these two
vehicles leading to the death of both the rider and the
pillion rider. The other documents are produced at
Ex.P.10 to 25, such as the Geneological tree, RTC extract,
PM report, inquest mahazar, Driving license extract. The
lodging of FIR and charge sheet has not been questioned
or challenged by the driver of the bus. Therefore,
occurrence of the accident is established. The charge
sheet having been filed against the driver of the bus which
is not questioned also establishes that the negligence on
behalf of the driver of the bus.
15. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,
income and compensation to be arrived, no documents are
produced by the claimants to show the proof of income.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
Though in the case of deceased Ramesh, it is stated that
he was doing agricultural work and no material proof is
placed on record to show any proof of income. Even in the
case of Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda, it is stated that he was
working as a lorry driver earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. Apart
from producing driving license nothing has been placed on
record regarding proof of his income. The Tribunal in view
of lack of any material record has taken the average
income of both the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. as per the
Legal Services Authority chart and notional income for the
accident year 2017 prescribed at Rs.11,000/- p.m. In
case there is no proof of income as a standard measure,
the legal services authority chart and notional income is
taken for consideration.
16. Accordingly, in the present case also
Rs.11,000/- is taken as income for both the deceased
persons for calculation. In the case of deceased Ramesh,
he was aged about 42 years and in the case of Chikkanna
@ Chikkegowda is aged about 44 years, the appropriate
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
multiplier in both the cases fall within a range of 41 to 45.
The multiplier would be '14' as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND
OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
REPORTED IN (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121, which has
rightly taken by the Tribunal same is not interfered.
17. In view of the fact that the deceased in both the
cases aged 42 and 44 years. The future prospects would
have to be added to the income at 25% as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases
680, which has not been considered by the Tribunal. In
both the cases, there are 4 dependants of the deceased.
In the case of deceased Ramesh, his mother having died
pursuant to the disposal of the claim petition. Hence, 4
dependants remain who are financially dependant on him.
In the case of Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda also there are 4
dependants. Accordingly, 1/4th would have to be deducted
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
from the income towards personal expenses of the
deceased and in view of the above, the loss of dependency
in both the cases would be Rs.11,000 + 25%
= Rs.13,715 X 1/4 = Rs.10,312/- which would be income
of the deceased for calculation. Therefore, the loss of
dependency would be Rs.10,312X 12X 14=
Rs.17,32,416/-.
18. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards
loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love
and affection, in all amounting to Rs.90,000/-. I am in
agreement with the learned counsel for the claimants that
the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding less
consortium to an extent of only Rs.90,000/-. As the
consortium requires to be awarded at Rs.40,000/- per
person in both the cases and there being 4 dependants in
both the cases Rs.40,000X 4 would be Rs.1,60,000/- and
additional amount of 10% as escalation towards one block
period is contemplated in the case of PRANAY SETHI
(supra) would have to be awarded which would be
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
Rs.1,60,000 X 10% = Rs.16,000/- whereas the Tribunal
has awarded Rs.90,000/- in both the cases. This Court is
of the opinion that Rs.1,60,000+ 16,000 = 1,76,000/-
requires to be awarded under the head of loss of
consortium.
19. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral, obsequies
expenses and transportation of dead body, which does not
call for interference. However, Rs.30,000/- awarded
under the conventional head also requires 10% escalation
towards one block period of 3 years, in all making it
Rs.33,000/-.
20. In view of the above discussion, the claimants
in both the cases would be entitled to compensation of
Rs.19,41,416/- as against Rs.11,28,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal as mentioned in the table below:
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards loss of dependency 17,32,416-00
Towards loss of consortium 1,60,000-00
10% of consortium 16,000-00
Towards loss of love and affection 50,000-00
to the petitioners
Towards loss of estate 15,000-00
Towards funeral, obsequies 15,000-00
expenses and transportation of
dead body
10% on conventional heads 3,000-00
TOTAL 19,41,416-00
21. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
vehemently contends that the interest awarded is
exhorbitant and the same is not contemplated in the Motor
Vehicles Act or the Rules and hence he seeks for reduction
of interest rate. Accepting the contention of learned
counsel for the Insurance Company, I deem it appropriate
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
MFA No. 6583 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 333 of 2020
MFA No. 1829 of 2020
MFA No. 5488 of 2021
to lower down the interest rate from 9% to 6% per
annum.
22. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals preferred by the Corporation in both
appeals are rejected and the appeals preferred by
the claimants are allowed in part;
ii) The claimant is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.19,41,416/- as against Rs.11,28,000/-
awarded by the tribunal;
iii) The interest awarded by the tribunal is reduced
from 9% to 6% per annum.
iv) All other terms and conditions stipulated by
tribunal shall stand intact;
v) The balance amount of compensation shall carry
interest @ 6% which shall be deposited within 8
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order; and
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:196
vi) The amount deposited before this Court shall be
transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith
and the amount shall be disbursed upon proper
verification to the respective parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SKS/CPN
