Monday, 01, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The Managing Director vs Smt Ramakka
2024 Latest Caselaw 15031 Kant

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15031 Kant
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2024

Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Smt Ramakka on 28 June, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC:24196
                                                            MFA No. 6189 of 2019




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                  DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                                 BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6189 OF 2019 (MV-D)

                      BETWEEN:

                           THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
                           B M T C CENTRAL OFFICE
                           K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
                           BANGALORE - 560 027.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. D VIJAYKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   SMT RAMAKKA
                           W/O LATE SIDDAIAH
                           AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

                      2.   MAHALAKSHMI
                           D/O LATE SIDDAIAH
                           AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS.

Digitally signed by   3.   VIDYASHRI
R HEMALATHA                D/O LATE SIDDAIAH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                   AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
                      4.   CHIRANJIVI
                           S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
                           AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS

                           RESPONDENT NO 2-4 ARE MINOR
                           REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER &
                           NATURAL GUARDIAN THE 1ST RESPONDENT
                           PRESENT ADDRESS MANJUNATH NO 375
                           PATTALAMMA LAYOUT KADUGODI
                           BENGALURU-67.
                                   -2-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:24196
                                              MFA No. 6189 of 2019




5.   MR MANJUNATHA
     S/O HANUMAAPPA (MUNIYAPPA )
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     R/O SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
     HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
     (RC. OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO KA- 53-J-3058)
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA D.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
    V/O DATED 20.04.2023 NOTICE TO R5 D/W)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1989 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13/03/2019, PASSED IN MVC
NO.391/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIV ACMM., MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU (SCCH-20), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.20,86,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award and judgment dated March 13, 2019, passed by the V Additional Court of Small Causes and XXIV A.C.M.M. & SCCH-20, Bangalore, in MVC No. 391/2014.

2. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking just and proper compensation for the death of Siddaiah, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on December 21, 2013. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 20,86,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of the petition until realization.

NC: 2024:KHC:24196

3. The Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) is in appeal before this Court, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the records.

5. The accident occurred in 2013, and the deceased was 35 years old at the time of the accident. The claimants, in order to substantiate the deceased's earnings, stated before the Tribunal that the deceased was an Ayurvedic Practitioner earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and was also engaged in agriculture.

6. Taking into account that the deceased was an Ayurvedic Practitioner, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- per month, as opposed to the Rs. 10,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. After adding 40% to account for future prospects and deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 9,450/- per month. By adopting a multiplier of 16, the compensation towards loss of dependency amounts to Rs. 18,14,400/- (9,450 x 12 x 16 x 3/4).

7. Additionally, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, which totals Rs.1,60,000/- for the four claimants. They are also entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In total, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.20,04,400/- as against the

NC: 2024:KHC:24196

Rs.20,86,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization. This results in a reduced compensation difference of Rs.81,600/-.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated above. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 20,04,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

9. The appellant, BMTC, is directed to deposit the reduced compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall ensure the proper disbursement of the compensation amount to the claimants.

10. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Tribunal is modified.

11. The Statutory amount as well as the amount in deposit in the light of the interim order passed by this Court to be transmitted to the Jurisdictional Tribunal.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter