Karnataka High Court
Managing Director vs Neelavati W/O Shivalingappa Barker on 3 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 23706 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100040 OF 2015 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23706 OF 2013
IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100040 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. NEELAVATI W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BARKER,
AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR, SIRSI.
2. MADEV, SHIVALINGAPPA BARKER,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR, SIRSI.
3. MANJUNATH SHIVALINGAPPA BARKER,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLI,
Digitally SMT. JYOTI HANUMANTH HAVERAGI
signed by
BHARATHI H R/O: VIVEKANAND NAGAR, SIRSI.
BHARATHI M
HM Date:
2024.01.11
11:40:11 4. SMT. JYOTI HANUMANTH HAVERAGI,
+0530
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: ARVIND NAGAR, HUBBLLI.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C, SHANTI NAGAR,
BANGALURU-27.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 23706 of 2013
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
K.S.R.T.C.,
DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE.
3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.S.R.T.C., SIRSI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS M.F.A. CROSS OBJ IN MFA NO.23706/2013 FILED U/O.41
RULE 22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.59/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL SIRSI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2,
WITH COSTS AND DISMISSING AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND
3.
IN M.F.A. NO.23706 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALURU-560027.
2. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
K.S.R.T.C., DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE-577001.
3. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.S.R.T.C., SIRSI-581401.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
REPRESENTED BY IT'S
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C.,
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 23706 of 2013
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NEELAVATI,
W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BARKER,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2. MADEV, SHIVALINGAPPA BARKER,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
3. MANJUNATH SHIVALINGAPPA BARKER,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE
R/O. 3RD CROSS, VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
HUBLI ROAD, AT: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR,
PIN-581401.
4. SMT. JYOTI HANUMANTH HAVERAGI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O: ARVIND NAGAR, HUBBLLI
DISTRICT: DHARWAD,
PIN: 580020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.Y. YAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF
MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.59/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDL. MACT, SIRSI, AWARDING
THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,39,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF
PAYMENT IN FULL.
THESE M.F.A. CROSS OBJ AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST
APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 23706 of 2013
JUDGMENT
Though these matters are listed for orders, with the
consent of learned counsel of both the parties matter is
taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. S C. Bhuti, learned counsel for the
appellant/KSRTC and Sri. S V. YAJI, learned counsel for
the respondents/claimants.
3. This appeal as well as cross-objection arise out
of the Judgment and award passed in MVC No.59/2012 on
the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Sirsi, dated
31.05.2013. The KSRTC has challenged the quantum of
compensation and also contributory negligence on the part
of the deceased. Where as the cross-objectors have
sought for enhancement of compensation on the ground
that the Tribunal has not taken the monthly income
properly and also not allowed compensation towards
future prospects.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
4. The accident said to have taken place at Sirsi-
Kumta road on 15.01.2012 at 7.00 P.M. involving Motor
cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-31-R-5536 and KSRTC bus
bearing Reg. No. KA-17-F-893 is not in dispute; so also
death of the rider of Motor cycle is not in dispute. Charge
sheet came to be filed after thorough investigation against
the driver of the KSRTC bus and the same is not
challenged by the KSRTC or the driver.
5. Prima facie materials available on record namely
FIR, Charge sheet, P.M report would go to show that it is
the negligence of the driver of offending bus which has
resulted in accident and there is no material on record
which would indicate that there was contributory
negligence on the part of rider of the motor cycle. No
doubt, Venkatraman Hanumappa Badagi is examined as
R.W.1, who is the driver of the bus. His evidence is only in
the nature of oral testimony without there being any
supporting material. Conductor of the bus or any other
passenger of the bus could have been examined to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
substantiate the alleged contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased. No such attempt has been made by
KSRTC. It is also pertinent to note that the driver of the
offending bus did not choose to lodge the complaint before
the Jurisdictional Police alleging that it is the contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the Motorcycle
resulting in the accident and the accident has occurred on
account of the fact that it has occurred beyond human
control and with regard to the negligent driving of the
Motorcycle by the deceased.
6. Further, no material on record is also placed as
on record about final result of the criminal prosecution
against the driver of the bus.
7. When all these factors are taken into
consideration in a cumulative manner, this Court is unable
to accept the contention held on behalf of the
appellant/KSRTC that the Tribunal has erred in fastening
the entire liability on the KSRTC without attributing any
contributory negligence to the rider of the Motor cycle.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
Therefore, the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum
insofar as the appeal by the KSRTC is to be rejected.
8. This would take us to the next aspect in the
matter namely the quantum of compensation. The
learned trial Judge has considered the monthly income in a
sum of Rs.8,000/- for the accident that has occurred in the
year 2012. Usually, this Court would assess the notional
income in a sum of Rs.6,500/-. The Tribunal believing the
material evidence placed on record, has made a guess
work of assessing the monthly income in a sum of
Rs.8,000/- on the ground that the deceased was working
as a contractor and he is also owner of two trucks.
Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the
claimants that the monthly income assessed by the
Tribunal is incorrect, cannot be countenanced in law.
However, there is sufficient force in the argument put
forward on behalf of the cross-objectors that, the Tribunal
has not properly assessed the future income and also not
assessed the future prospects. However, there is no
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
material on record to show that what was the contract
work that the deceased has conducted prior to his death
and what was the monthly or annual income that he was
getting from the contract work.
9. At any rate, it is not in dispute that he was
working as a Contractor and he was registered Contractor.
As such, he cannot be equated with a normal collie and
hence, monthly income cannot be assessed at Rs.6,500/-.
The Tribunal has therefore rightly assessed the monthly
income in a sum of Rs.8,000/- but future prospects must
have been awarded at 10% taking note of the fact that the
deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident.
Accordingly, the compensation amount assessed by the
Tribunal needs reconsideration insofar as the quantum is
concerned by including 10% towards future prospectus
and conventional heads. Therefore, the quantum is
reassessed as under:
Rs.8,000 + 10% (addition) = Rs.8,800 (income) X 12
(months) X 11 (multiplier) X 2/3 = 7,74,400
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
Loss of dependency 7,74,400
Consortium (Rs.40,000X4) 1,60,000
Transportation of dead body & funeral 15,000
expenses
Loss of estate 15,000
Total 9,64,400
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
a) Appeal filed by the KSRTC in MFA
No.23706/2013 is hereby dismissed.
b) Cross-objection filed by the claimants in
MFA CROB No.100040/2015 is allowed in part.
c) Impugned judgment and award stands
modified by granting compensation to the
claimants in a sum of Rs.9,64,400/- as against a
sum of Rs.7,39,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:97
d) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.
e) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
