Karnataka High Court
Smt.Boya Nagamma And Ors vs Sri.Ibrahim And Anr on 1 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
MFA No. 202530 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 202387 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202530 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202387 OF 2019 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.202530 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.BOYA NAGAMMA
W/O LATA RANGASWAMY,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
2. PARTHA S/O LATE RANGASWAMY
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON 3. PAVITHRA D/O LATE RANGASWAMY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 3 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
4. PRABHAKAR S/O SHIVANNA
AGE: 58 YEARS.
5. PADMAMMA W/O PRABHAKAR
AGE: 52, ALL THE ABOVE APPELLANTS ARE THE
R/O: YANKATAPUR VILLAGE, K T DODDI
(DHARAPUR), MANADAI, TQ. GADWAL,
NOW RESIDING AT H/NO 3/6, OLD ASHRAYA
COLONY, CHANDRABANDA ROAD, RAICHUR-584101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHARANAGOWDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
MFA No. 202530 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 202387 of 2019
AND:
1. SRI. IBRAHIM
DRIVER BADAGE NO. 38,
MAJOR, OCCU: DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS,
R/O: NEKRTC DEPOT NO.2, RAICHUR-584101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS. SANGEETA BHADRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 13.06.2019, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT AT RAICHUR IN MVC
NO.396/2017, AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.23,22,000/- WITH INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.202387 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
RAICHUR, NOW THROUGH ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICES, SARIGE SADANA,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY MISS. SANGEETA BHADRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
MFA No. 202530 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 202387 of 2019
AND:
1. SMT.BOYA NAGAMMA
W/O LATA RANGASWAMY,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
2. PARTHA S/O LATE RANGASWAMY
AGE: 6 YEARS, MINOR.
3. PAVITHRA D/O LATE RANGASWAMY
AGE: 3 YEARS MINOR.
4. PRABHAKAR S/O SHIVANNA
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN.
5. PADMAMMA W/O PRABHAKAR
AGE: 52, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 HEREIN ARE MINORS
U/G OF RESPONDENT 1 HEREIN NATURAL MOTHER
ALL RESPONDENTS 1-5 HEREIN ARE
R/O: YANKATAPUR VILLAGE, K T DODDI
(DHARAPUR), MANADAI, TQ. GADWAL,
NOW RESIDING AT H/NO 3/6, OLD ASHRAYA
COLONY, CHANDRABANDA ROAD, RAICHUR-584101.
6. IBRAHIM,
DRIVER BADAGE NO. 38,
MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS,
YELBURGA DEPOT, DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583236.
...RESPONDENTS
NOTICE TO R1 TO R5 SERVED,
THE APPEAL AGAINST R6 IS STANDS DISMISSED.
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.396/2017, DATED
13.06.2019, BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AND MACT, AT RAICHUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
MFA No. 202530 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 202387 of 2019
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of
Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') and the same are arising out of the judgment
and award dated 13.06.2019 passed in MVC No.396/2017
by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC & MACT,
Raichur.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 13.06.2019 passed in MVC No.396/2017, the
petitioners filed the appeal in MFA No.202530/2019
seeking enhancement of compensation and respondent-
Corporation has filed the appeal in MFA No.202387/2019,
challenging the liability.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are as
under:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
On 06.06.2017 the Rangaswamy and one Sri
Nagireddy, came to Raichur for work and after completion
of said work, both of them were proceeding to Raichur on
a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-22/AL-5424 and
when they were proceeding towards Ambedkar Circle via
Central Bus stand, the respondent No.1 being the driver of
KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-32/F-1140 came
with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the said motorcycle. Due to which, the said
Rangaswamy pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous
injuries and he was shifted to RIMS Raichur, wherein the
doctors have declared him as dead. The petitioners being
the legal representatives of deceased-Rangaswamy have
filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act seeking for compensation of Rs.38,50,000/- with
interest.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the written
statement denying the averments made in the claim
petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
6. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the
parties framed the issues. The petitioners in order to prove
their claim, examined petitioner No.1 as PW.1 and also
examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked 7
documents as per Exs.P1 to P7. On the other hand,
respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1 and got marked
document as per Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and
after considering the material on record allowed the claim
petition in part. It was ordered that petitioners are entitled
for compensation of Rs.15,28,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization and directed respondent No.2 to deposit
compensation amount within 30 days from the date of
award.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
award passed by the tribunal, petitioners have filed MFA
No.202530/2019 seeking enhancement of compensation
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
and respondent No.2-Corporation has filed MFA
No.202387/2019 challenging the liability.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower
side. He submits that the accident was occurred due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus i.e.
respondent No.1. He also submits that charge sheet is
filed against respondent No.1. Hence, he submits that the
deceased rider of the motorcycle has contributed his
negligence for the cause of accident. The tribunal was
justified in fastening the liability on respondent No.2.
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal
filed by the petitioners and dismiss the appeal filed by the
respondent-Corporation.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that the rider of the motorcycle has contributed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
his negligence for the cause of accident and hence the
tribunal ought to have assessed the contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.
Hence, he submits that the tribunal committed an error in
fastening the entire liability on respondent No.2. She
further submits that the compensation awarded by the
tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any
interference. She also submits that the tribunal ought to
have awarded interest @ 6% p.a. but awarded interest @
9% which is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds,
she prays to allow the appeal filed by the respondent-
Corporation and prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the
petitioners.
12. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The points that would arise for our consideration are with
regard to liability and quantum of compensation.
13. Insofar as liability is concerned: It is not in
dispute that the deceased Rangaswamy was the pillion
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
rider of motorcycle met with an accident and sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. In order
to establish that, the accident took place due to rashness
and negligence driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle, the petitioners have produced the certified copy of
FIR marked at Ex.P2, which discloses that accident took
place due to rashness and negligence driving of the driver
of the offending vehicle. Further, it is clear from Ex.P2 that
immediately after the accident, criminal case was
registered against the respondent No.1 for the offence
punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and
final report is filed which is marked as Ex.P3 which
discloses that accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The
respondent No.2 has not led any evidence to establish that
the rider of the motorcycle has contributed for the cause
of accident. RW.1 being the driver of the bus, it is quiet
natural that he will depose in his favour only. Hence, he is
interested witness. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
fastened the liability on respondent No.2. Hence, in view
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
of the above, we do not find any error in the impugned
judgment, insofar as exonerating the liability on the
respondent No.2.
Quantum of compensation:
14. It is the case of the petitioners that, deceased
was doing labour work and earning Rs.23,000/- per month
and he is the only bread earner in the family. Due to
sudden death of the deceased-Rangaswamy, the
petitioners were put to starvation. In order to establish
monthly income of the deceased, the petitioners have not
produced any record to prove the income of the deceased.
In the absence of proof of income, the notional income of
the deceased has to be assessed as per the guidelines
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. On
the contrary, the tribunal has taken Rs.9,000/- per month.
The accident is of the year 2017. We re-assess the
notional income at Rs.10,250/- per month. To the
aforesaid amount, as the deceased was aged 25 years,
40% of the said amount has to be added on account of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
future prospects in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thus,
the monthly income comes to Rs.14,350/- (10,250 +
4100). There are five petitioners. Considering that there
are 5 dependents, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th
of the said income towards personal expenses of the
deceased and therefore, the monthly income of the
deceased comes to Rs.10,763/- Taking into account the
age of the deceased which was 25 years at the time of
accident, multiplier of '18' has to be adopted as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported
in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, the petitioners are
entitled to a sum of Rs.23,24,808/- (Rs.10,763/- x 12 x
18) on account of loss of dependency.
15. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130,
each petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards
loss of consortium. The petitioners are five in numbers,
hence, the compensation towards loss of consortium would
be Rs.2,20,000/- (44,000 x 5).
16. In addition, the petitioners/appellants are
entitled a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses
and Rs.16,500/- under the head of loss of estate.
17. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.25,77,808/- as against Rs.15,28,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioners are entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.10,49,808/-
18. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the petitioners in MFA
No.202530/2019 is allowed in part.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
ii. The appeal filed by the respondent-
Corporation in MFA No.202387/2019 is
dismissed.
iii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
iv. The petitioners are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.25,77,808/- as
against Rs.15,28,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
v. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.10,49,808/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
vi. Respondent No.2/Corporation is directed
to deposit the compensation amount
before the Tribunal within a period of
eight weeks from date of the receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4424-DB
vii. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted along with trial Court records
to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
CT;BN
