Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller Neksrtc vs Laxmi Bai And Ors on 2 July, 2024

                                               -1-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB
                                                       MFA No.202524 of 2022




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 2ND 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.202524 OF 2022 (MV-D)


                      BETWEEN:

                      THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
                      N.E.K.S.R.T.C., SARIGE SADAN,
                      KALABURAGI,
                      NOW REPRESENTED BY
                      CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KALABURAGI.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT

                      (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ              AND:
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              1.   LAXMI BAI
KARNATAKA
                           W/O BHIMANNA
                           @ BHIMARAYA @ BHIMRAO,
                           AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                           OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

                      2.   KAVERI
                           D/O BHIMANNA @ BHIMARAYA
                           @ BHIMRAO @ BHEEMSHA,
                           AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
                           OCC: STUDENT,
                               -2-
                                NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB
                                       MFA No.202524 of 2022




3.   RAJKUMAR
     D/O BHIMANNA @ BHIMARAYA
     @ BHIMRAO @ BHEEMSHA,
     AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
     OCC: STUDENT,

     THE RESPONDENT
     NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
     REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER
     RESPONDENT NO.1.

4.   TULAJAMMA @ TULJAMMA
     W/O KHATALAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD

     ALL ARE R/O: RAJAPUR,
     TQ: CHITTAPUR,
     DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 103.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC.
FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET
ASIDE    THE   JUDGMENT   AND       AWARD   DATED   02.09.2022
PASSED    BY   THE   SENIOR    CIVIL   JUDGE   AND   M.A.C.T.,
CHINCHOLI, IN M.V.C. NO.777/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY, BE
PLEASED TO REDUCE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS MFA COMING         ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-
                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB
                                      MFA No.202524 of 2022




                        JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the

respondent-Corporation under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

against the judgment and award dated 02.09.2022 passed

by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Chincholi, in MVC No.777/2020 (for short,

hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are

that on 04.03.2019 at about 8.30 a.m., petitioner No.1

along with her husband Bhimaraya was standing in the

bus stand of Chincholi to go to their village. At that time,

when Bhimaraya was returning to platform No.1, KSRTC

bus bearing registration No.KA-32-F-1790 came in a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the

Bhimaraya. Due to which, Bhimaraya sustained grievous

injuries and died on the spot. The criminal case was

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

registered against the driver of the bus in Crime

No.27/2019. It is contended that the deceased-Bhimaraya

was aged about 34 years and he was hale and healthy and

was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from agriculture and

business. It is contended that the deceased was spending

entire income for the welfare of the family and he was the

only earning member in the family. Therefore, the

petitioners being the legal representatives of the

deceased-Bhimaraya filed claim petition under Section 166

of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on

account of the death of Sri.Bhimaraya in a road traffic

accident.

4. The respondent filed written statement denying

the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended

that on the date of the accident, the deceased was

quarreling with his wife and he came running in front of

the bus and he himself jumped in front of the bus and died

on the spot. Hence, it is contended that the deceased

himself has committed suicide by jumping before the bus

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the

bus and prays to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the

parties framed the issues for its consideration.

6. In order to prove the claim petition before the

Tribunal, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and got

marked 09 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the other

hand, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and

conductor of the bus was examined as RW.2 and one

witness was examined as RW.3 and got marked one

document as Ex.R1.

7. The Tribunal after recording the evidence,

hearing on both sides and on assessment of oral and

documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part

with costs. It is ordered that petitioners are entitled for

compensation of Rs.24,61,928/- with interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization of the compensation amount. It is also held

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

that the respondent is liable to pay compensation amount

and directed the respondent to deposit the compensation

amount within 60 days from the date of passing of the

judgment and award.

8. The respondent, being aggrieved by the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in the

aforesaid petition, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the

respondent-Corporation and learned counsel for

petitioners-claimants.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation

submits that the deceased-Bhimaraya committed suicide

by jumping before the bus. Hence, there is no negligence

on the part of the driver of the bus. He also submits that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher

side. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal is required to be interfered with.

On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants

submits that the petitioners have proved that the accident

has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the bus. He also submits that the charge sheet is

filed against the driver of the bus. Therefore, the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and

proper and does not call for any interference. On these

grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

12. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

13. The point that arises for our consideration is

with regard to quantum of compensation.

14. In order to establish that the accident has

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the bus, the petitioners have produced certified copy of

the FIR and charge sheet which are marked as Exs.P1 and

P3. The petitioners have denied that the deceased has

committed suicide. The complainant who is petitioner No.1

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

is examined as PW.1 and she has reiterated the petition

averments in the examination-in-chief. From the perusal

of the cross-examination of PW.1, it would disclose that

there is no suggestion to PW.1 that the deceased-

Bhimaraya has committed suicide. There is no specific

suggestion to PW.1 that the deceased-Bhimaraya

committed suicide by falling before the bus. The defence

of the respondent has not been proved. Though the

respondent has examined the witnesses in order to

establish that the deceased-Bhimaraya committed suicide

by jumping before the bus, but the Police have filed

charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal

considering Ex.P1-certified copy of the FIR and Ex.P3

certified copy of the charge sheet was justified in holding

that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the bus. We do not find any error

in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident

has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the bus.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

15. Insofar as quantum of compensation is

concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that deceased-

Bhimaraya was an agriculturist and was getting income of

Rs.40,000/- per month. In order to establish that the

deceased-Bhimaraya was earning Rs.40,000/- per month,

the petitioners have not produced any records. In the

absence of proof of income, the notional income of the

deceased will have to be taken as per the chart provided

by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In terms

of the chart, for the accident of the year 2019, the

notional income of the deceased will have to be taken at

Rs.13,250/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly taken the

notional income of the deceased at Rs.13,250/- per

month. To the aforesaid amount, as the deceased was

aged 44 years, 25% of the said amount has to be added

on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down

by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble 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.16,562/-.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

Out of which, considering that there are 4 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.12,422/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased

which was 44 years at the time of accident, multiplier of

14 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.20,86,896/- (Rs.12,422/- x 12 x 14) on account of loss

of dependency.

16. Further, in view of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi

(supra) and Magma General 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 four in number, hence,

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

the compensation towards loss of consortium would be

Rs.1,76,000/- (44,000 x 4). In addition, the

petitioners/appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.33,000/-

towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and

transportation charges.

17. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a

sum of Rs.22,95,896/- as against Rs.24,61,928/- awarded

by the Tribunal. Thus, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is reduced by Rs.1,66,032/-.

18. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

   ii.          The    impugned          judgment      and       award
                passed by the Tribunal is modified.


   iii.         The    petitioners       are     entitled   to    total
                compensation         of        Rs.22,95,896/-       as

against Rs.24,61,928/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4483-DB

till the date of realization. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs.1,66,032/-.

iv. Rest of the impugned judgment and award is maintained.

v. Respondent-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.