Karnataka High Court
Mini Ashok Kumar vs The Managing Director on 1 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
MFA No. 2327 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 6466 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2327 OF 2020 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6466 OF 2021(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.2327/2020
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE,
SARIGE BHAVANA K. H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. MINI ASHOK KUMAR
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High
W/O LATE P. R. ASHOK KUMAR,
Court of AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Karnataka
2. AKHILA ASHOK KUMAR
D/O LATE P. R. ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT D 152,
PRASANNA REDDY BUILDING,
BEHIND PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
NERALURU, BENGALURU - 560 107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH H C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
MFA No. 2327 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 6466 of 2021
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED.20.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1046/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, ACMM, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-13), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.12,61,745/- WITH INTEREST AT 6
PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.6466/2021
BETWEEN:
1. MINI ASHOK KUMAR
W/O LATE P. R. ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. AKHILA ASHOK KUMAR
D/O LATE P. R. ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT
D. 152, PRASANNA REDDY BUILDING,
BEHIND PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
NERALURU, BENGALURU - 560 107.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH H C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
K. H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED.20.11.2019 IN MVC NO.1046/2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MACT,
BENGALURU, (SCCH-13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
MFA No. 2327 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 6466 of 2021
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.2327/2020 is filed by the appellant/KSRTC
challenging the award of compensation granted to the
respondents by the Court of Additional Small Causes Judge
and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru
(SCCH-13), whereas, MFA No.6466/2021 is filed by the
claimants for enhancing the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both
the parties.
3. The appellant/KSRTC in MFA No.2327/2020 is
respondent in MVC No.1046/2019 and the appellants in
MFA 6466/2021 are the petitioners/claimants in MVC
No.1046/2019 (herein referred as claimants/petitioners).
4. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is
retained for the sake of convenience
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
5. The case of the petitioners is that they have filed
this petition under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, claiming compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- for death
of P.R.Ashok Kumar, who died in the road traffic accident.
6. It is alleged that on 04.12.2018 at about 1.30
p.m., when the deceased was crossing the road near
Neralur Panchayath office on Hosur-Bangalore, NH-7 road
cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules and norms, by
that time a KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-1794
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
deceased, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained
grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Sparsh
Hospital, Bengaluru and later for further treatment he was
shifted to the private Hospital at Palakad, Kerala State
wherein he succumbed to the injuries on 10.12.2018. The
deceased was aged about 54 years and was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are the
wife and daughter of the deceased respectively. Due to the
death of deceased, they lost the dependency. Hence, they
claim compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
7. In response to the notice, respondent-KSRTC has
appeared through its counsel and filed statement of
objections by denying the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Bus and contended that the time and date of
accident in question was on its schedule trip from Hosur to
Bengaluru, vehicle was driven slowly and cautiously on the
left side of the road by observing all traffic rules and
regulations. It was proceeding on national high way and
the deceased has violated the traffic rules and he himself
has suddenly crossed the road and he was also under the
influence of alcohol, due to which, accident has occurred.
The driver was no way responsible for the accident.
Further it has denied the age, occupation, income of the
deceased and prays for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the death
of Sri.P.R.Ashok Kumar is on account of the
RTA on 04.12.2018 at about 1.30 p.m. near
Neralur Panchayath Office, Hosur-Bengaluru
NH-07 Road, Attigele Hobli, Bengaluru
District and accident had taken place due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
KSRTC Bus Vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-42-F-1794 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether petitioners prove that they are the
Legal Representatives of the Sri. P.R.Ashok
Kumar?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that they are
entitled for the compensation as claimed? If
so, to what extent and from whom?
4. What order or award?
9. To prove the case of the claimants, the 2nd
claimant got examined as PW-1 and got marked 13
documents as Ex.P.1 to P.13 and Respondent has
examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and got
marked three documents as Ex.R.1 to R.3.
10. After hearing the arguments, Tribunal has
answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative, issue No.3
in the Partly Affirmative and awarded compensation of
Rs.12,61,745/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and
allowed the petition in-part.
11. Being aggrieved by fastening the liability and
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
KSRTC has filed the appeal. Whereas, the claimants being
aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation.
12. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, the points that arise for my consideration are as
follows:-
1. Whether the Tribunal has justified in giving
the finding that the accident has occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the
Driver of the KSRTC bus or on the
negligence of the deceased?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal required to be enhanced/reduce, if
so, what award?
13. On perusal of the records, it reveals that on
04.12.2018 at about 1.30 p.m., the deceased Ashok
Kumar was crossing the road near Neralur Panchayath
office, at that time, a KSRTC Bus came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due
to which, he sustained injuries. It is not in dispute that the
deceased has succumbed to the injuries sustained in the
accident. This Court has to consider only the aspect of
negligence of deceased or the driver of the KSRTC Bus for
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
occurrence of accident by re-appreciating the evidence on
record. Of course, PW-1 is not an eye witness to the
accident, whereas, the police have investigated the matter
and filed charge sheet against the driver of the KSRTC
Bus. The respondent-KSRTC driver has given evidence
stating that this accident was occurred due to the
negligence of the deceased himself, who has crossed the
road under the influence of alcohol.
14. In order to prove the contention, the respondent
has not produced any evidence or examined any
independent witness or passenger of the Bus or produced
any document to show that the deceased was under the
influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Ex.R2 is the
MLC Extract issued by the Sparsh Hospital and other
medical records especially Ex.P.12 and Ex.R-3 in patient
records which reveals that the deceased had not
consumed alcohol when he was brought to the hospital
immediately after the accident. Subsequently, the
deceased was taken to some other hospital at Kerala and
got treated but he was succumbed to the injuries. Except
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
the oral contention of the driver stating that he has
followed all the rules and regulations and was driving
slowly, the deceased himself came in contact of the right
side of the bus etc., cannot be acceptable without any
collaborative evidence on record.
15. On the other hand, in the FIR - Ex.P.1, complaint
- Ex.P.2, Spot Mahazar - Ex.P.3 and Spot Sketch - Ex.P.4,
it was found that the accident had occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident
had occurred purely on the negligence on the part of the
driver of the Bus and not due to negligence on the part of
the pedestrian/deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has
rightly answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimants as
against the KSRTC.
16. With regard to the quantum of compensation,
even though there is no documents produced, the Tribunal
has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/-
per month. The accident is of the year 2018. As per the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
chart recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service
Authority Rs.12,500/- is required to be considered as
Notional Income. The deceased was aged about 54 years
at the time of the accident and hence, 10% has to be
added towards future prospectus. Hence, Rs.13,750/-
(12,500 + 10%) is taken as income of the deceased. As
there is two dependants, 1/3rd of the income has to be
deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, income of
the deceased comes to Rs.9,167/-. As the deceased was
aged about 54 years at the time of the accident, the
appropriate multiplier applicable is '11'. Therefore, an
amount of Rs.12,10,044/- (9,167 x 12 x 11) is awarded
under the head 'loss of dependency'.
17. Towards 'loss of consortium', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards 'love and
affection'. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.
Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others1, petitioner No.1 being
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
wife of the deceased is entitled for loss of marital
consortium of Rs.40,000/- and petitioner No.2 being
daughter of deceased is entitled for parental consortium of
Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a
sum of Rs.80,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' instead
of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
18. Towards 'loss of estate' and 'transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses', Rs.15,000/- each has
been awarded by the Tribunal. An amount of
Rs.1,93,745/- is awarded by Tribunal under the head
'medical expenses' and the same is kept intact.
19. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.15,000/- under the head 'transportation of dead body
and funeral expenses'. It is just and appropriate to award
an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the said head.
20. However, it has to be noted that the injured was
first taken to the Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru and for
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
further treatment he was shifted to private hospital at
Palakad, Kerala State almost more than 500kms from
Bengaluru and definitely, the claimants would have spent
some amount towards transportation of the injured by an
ambulance or any other vehicle. Therefore, an amount of
Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards 'transportation'.
21. Accordingly, claimants are entitled for
compensation as under:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 12,10,044-00
Loss of consortium 80,000-00
Transportation of dead body 30,000-00
and funeral expenses
Medical expenses 1,93,745-00
Transportation 20,000-00
Total 15,33,789-00
Hence total compensation of Rs.15,33,789/- is
rounded off to Rs.15,33,790/-.
Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
1. The appeal in MFA No.2327/2020 filed by the
KSRTC is hereby dismissed.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24387
2. The appeal filed by the claimants in 6466/2021 is
allowed in-part.
3. The judgment and award dated 20.11.2019
passed in MVC No.1046/2019 by the Court of
Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (SCCH-
13) is hereby modified.
4. The appellants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.15,33,790/- together with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
5. The apportionment, deposit and release of
amount shall be made in terms of the award of
the Tribunal.
6. The statutory deposit made by the appellant-
KSRTC is ordered to transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VS
CT:SK
