Karnataka High Court
Kottakota Shankar Reddy vs The Managing Director on 5 March, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
MFA No. 5071 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 5121 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5071 OF 2020 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5121 OF 2020(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.5071/2020
BETWEEN:
1. KOTTAKOTA SHANKAR REDDY
S/O KOTTAKOTA MADDI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. KOTTAKOTA RAJAMMA
S/O KOTTAKOTA SHANKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3. KOTTAKOTTA BHANUPRAKASH REDDY
S/O KOTTAKOTA SHANKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT JALLA VANDLA PALLE
GOPIDINNE
THAMBALAPALLE
CHITTOR DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH
Digitally signed ...APPELLANTS
by
GAVRIBIDANUR (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)
SUBRAMANYA
GUPTA AND:
SREENATH
Location: HIGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BMTC DIVISION
SHANTHINAGAR
K.H ROAD
BENGALURU
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYKUMAR .,ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
MFA No. 5071 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 5121 of 2020
PASSED BY THE V ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV
ACMM., MEMBER M.A.C.T DATED 08.01.2020 IN MVC
NO.3552/2019, WITH A PRAYER FOR ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.5121/2020
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC DIVISION
SHANTHINAGAR
K.H ROAD
BENGALURU- 560 027
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KOTTAKOTA SHANKAR REDDY
S/O KOTTAKOTA MADDI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. SMT.KOTTAKOTA RAJAMMA
W/O KOTTAKOTA SHANKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3. SRI KOTTAKOTTA BHANUPRAKASH REDDY
S/O KOTTAKOTA SHANKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT JALLA VANDLA PALLE
GOPIDINNE
THAMBALAPALLE
CHITTOR DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
MFA No. 5071 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 5121 of 2020
AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3552/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL, SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND MEMBER-MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals - MFA Nos.5071/2020 and 5121/2020
are preferred by the claimants and the Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation') respectively
questioning the common judgment and award dated 8th
January, 2020 passed in MVC No.3552/2019 by the V ASCJ &
Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. MFA No.5071/2020 is preferred by the claimants on
the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, so also fixing of the contributory negligence
against the deceased. Whereas, MFA No.5121/2020 is
preferred by the Corporation on the ground that the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal is perverse, arbitrary, illegal
and erroneously fastened liability against the Corporation and
thereby seeking to set aside the same.
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
3. Parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 26.4.2019 at about 1.10 p.m., deceased Kottakota
Uday Prakash Reddy was driving a tractor bearing Registration
No.AP-03-BJ-9041 on Varthur Main Road, at that time, BMTC
bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-3747 came in a rash and
negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and safety, in
the same direction and dashed against the tractor. Due to the
occurrence of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot.
4.1 It is stated that the deceased was aged 20 years and
was working as office boy at Sai Malli Constructions, Hosakote,
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the sudden and
untimely death of the deceased, the claimants who are the
legal representatives and the dependants filed the claim
petition seeking compensation.
4.2 Respondent filed the written statement denying the
averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation
and income and pleaded that the accident did not occur due to
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
negligence of the bus, but due to the negligent driving of the
tractor by its driver, who was a minor. It is also pleaded that
the deceased did not possess valid and effective Driving Licence
as on the date of occurrence of the accident. Hence, sought for
dismissal of the claim petition.
4.3 On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
4.4 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the
case, the claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On the other hand, the respondent
got examined Conductor of the BMTC bus as RW.1 and did not
mark any documents on his behalf.
4.5 On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and
documentary, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.13,90,800/-, fixing the liability of 70% against the BMTC
and 30% contributory negligence against the deceased and
directed the respondent/Corporation to pay Rs.9,73,560/-
(70% of Rs.13,90,800/-) with interest at 9% per annum.
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
4.6 Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
award, claimants as well as Corporation are before this Court
questioning the same.
5. It is vehement contention of learned counsel for the
claimants that the Tribunal has committed gross error in not
looking in to the oral and documentary evidence in the proper
perspective. He further contends that the Tribunal has
committed gross error in fastening contributory negligence of
30% against the deceased. In the present case, the FIR and
the charge sheet have been laid against driver of the BMTC
bus. It is true, the deceased was minor in age, but he has not
contributed to the occurrence of the accident and therefore,
the Tribunal committed gross error in fastening contributory
negligence of 30% against the deceased and same should have
to be set aside fixing the entire liability on the BMTC. He also
contends that the Tribunal has taken notional income of
Rs.9,000/- which is on the lower side and the Legal
Services Authority chart stipulates the notional income of
Rs.14,000/- for the accident of the year 2019. He also
contends that compensation awarded under the head of
consortium is also on the lower side. On these grounds, he
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
seeks to allow this appeal and consequently enhance the
compensation.
6. Per contra, Sri D. Vijaykumar, learned counsel
representing the BMTC vehemently contends that the Tribunal
has committed a gross error in fastening the liability against
the Corporation to an extent of 70% and fixing only 30%
contributory negligence on the deceased. He contends that the
tractor was driven by the minor, who was aged 17 years and
admittedly he did not possess a valid and effective Driving
Licence. Therefore, the question of fastening liability against
the BMTC does not arise and same will have to be set aside and
the entire negligence is liable to be fastened against the
deceased himself. He also contends that the claim petition is
also bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties as the claimants
have not made owner of the tractor party to the claim petition.
7. Learned counsel further contends that question of
enhancing the compensation does not arise for the reason that
no material is placed before the Court to show that the
deceased was employed and earning income and even
according to the claimants, deceased passed SSLC, but he was
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
a drop out from I PUC. In fact, no material is placed to show
that the deceased was working as office boy at Sai Malli
Constructions, Hosakote and therefore question of enhancing
compensation is far-fetched and cannot be granted. Lastly,
he contends that interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per
annum on the compensation amount is on the higher side and
the same will have to be reduced to 6% per annum.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
perused the impugned judgment and award so also the original
records.
9. On careful perusal of the records, it is seen that Ex.P1
to Ex.P7 are the Police records, which apparently establish filing
of the FIR and laying of charge sheet against driver of the
BMTC bus in Crime No.65/2019 for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Hence, negligence is
attributed against driver of the bus. The same has not been
controverted and no material is placed either before the
Tribunal or this Court to challenge the same or for that matter
the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
10. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and
income, it is seen that as per the averment in the claim
petition, the deceased was 20 years, but according to the
documents produced by the claimants themselves, deceased
was aged 17 years as on the date of occurrence of the accident.
The claimants have stated that the deceased was working as a
Office Boy in Sai Malli Contractions, Hosakote. However, no
material is placed before the Court to establish the same. In
the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the proof of
income, the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased as
Rs.9000/- per month. However, the Legal Services Authority
chart stipulates the notional income of Rs.14,000/- for the
accident of the year 2019. The same will have to be taken in
the absence of proof of income and accordingly, the same is
taken in this case.
11. In view of the deceased being less than 40 years of
age, the future prospects at 40% will have to be added and
income would be Rs.19600/- (Rs.14,000/- plus Rs.5,600/-).
On deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses, it
would come to Rs.9800/-. The appropriate multiplier in this
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
case is 18. Therefore, loss of dependency would be Rs.9800 x
12 x 18 = Rs.21,16,800/-.
12. Towards the consortium, the Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation, which requires interference. As
per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases
680, Rs.40,000/- to be awarded to each of the dependents
towards loss of consortium. In the present case, this Court
deems it appropriate to award Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2)
towards parental consortium to claimant Nos.1 and 2, who
are parents. Further, this Court deems it appropriate to award
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection to claimant No.3,
who is brother of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate, which do not call for interference. I deem it
appropriate to retain the same. As per the decision in the
case of Pranay Sethi, the aforesaid amounts requires to be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore,
I deem it appropriate to award Rs.88,000/-, Rs.44,000/-,
Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- towards parental consortium, loss
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate
respectively.
13. Coming to the aspect of the liability and as to
whether the Corporation deserves to be exonerated from the
liability due to the fact that the deceased was a minor, not
possessing a valid and effective Driving Licence as on date of
occurrence of the accident, having heard learned counsel for
both the parties in detail, it is borne from the records that the
FIR and the charge sheet have been laid against driver of the
BMTC bus. The same is not challenged by driver of the bus.
The conductor of the bus adduced evidence as RW.1 and
narrated a different story altogether which does not tally with
the Police records and the Sketch/Ex.P4. Strangely it is seen
that no case has been registered against the driver of the
tractor i.e., minor who was driving the tractor without
possessing valid and effective Driving Licence. It is the callous
attitude of the Police, the investigating agency.
14. In the cases of accident where minors are
involved, be it a two wheeler or a four wheeler, it is the
tendency of the Police department to register FIR and
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
lay charge sheet against bigger vehicle, in most of the
cases. If this attitude of the Police Department
continues, then there would not be any sanctity for the
Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes age limit for
procuring the licence and provides several provisions/
sections for punishment and penalty for those, who drive
the two wheeler or four wheeler without possessing a
valid and effective Driving Licence. The Police
Department, Investigating Agency will have to take
responsibility, if they are really willing to streamline and
reform the Society in respect of reducing the accidents
rather than collecting fine and filling the coffers of
exchequer, which is not the intent of the Legislature and
infact there are several agencies for collecting tax and
filling the exchequer for the welfare of the State. It is
the duty of the Police Department to monitor and
penalize those who drive the vehicles on the road in rash
and negligent manner, jump the signals, violate the
rules and regulations, fail to wear helmets, ride triple
riding etc., strictly in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Thus, the Police Department has to take necessary steps
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
to have a system to control huge mortality rates in the
road traffic accident. All the stakeholders will have to
play major role in reforming the system and making
realization to the citizens that violation of traffic rules
would lead to serious consequences, including
impounding & seizing the Licence.
15. Be that as it may, coming back to the case on hand,
in the present case, admittedly FIR/Charge sheet is not laid
against the driver of the tractor, despite he being minor
without possessing valid and effective driving licence and
driving the vehicle without proper authorization from the owner
of the vehicle. All the factors are pointing towards the driver
of the bus, specifically FIR and the charge sheet. The Tribunal
on consideration of these aspects has fastened the liability of
70% against the BMTC bus and 30% contributory negligence
against the deceased.
16. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the
facts on hand, I do not find any cogent reason to differ from
the ratio of negligence attributed by the Tribunal of 70%
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
against the BMTC and 30% against the deceased. Under the
circumstances, the ratio fixed by the Tribunal is retained.
17. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the
Corporation that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9%
per annum is on the higher side and the same will have to be
reduced to 6% per annum. Accordingly, the interest is
reduced to 6% per annum on the entire compensation.
18. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled
to compensation of Rs.15,97,260/- as against Rs.9,73,560
awarded by the Tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
awarded
1 Loss of dependency Rs.21,16,800-00
2 Loss of parental consortium Rs. 88,000-00
3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 44,000-00
4 Loss of estate Rs. 16,500-00
5 Towards funeral and obsequies Rs. 16,500-00
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
Total Rs.22,81,800-00
Less: Contributory negligence of Rs. 6,84,540-00
30% attributed against the
deceased
(30% of Rs.22,81,800/-)
Compensation to which claimants Rs.15,97,260-00
are entitled for i.e., 70% of
Rs.22,81,800/-
19. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed in part;
ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 8th January,
2020 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.3552/2019, is
modified.
iii) The fastening of liability of 70% against the BMTC bus
and 30% contributory negligence against the
deceased, is sustained and confirmed,
iv) The claimants would be entitled to compensation of
Rs.15,97,260/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs ninety-seven
thousand two hundred and sixty only) as against
Rs.9,73,560/- awarded by the Tribunal alongwith
interest at 6% per annum.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9554
v) The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of
9% per annum on the compensation amount is
reduced to 6% per annum.
vi) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with
interest at 6% per annum by the respondent - BMTC
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this judgment.
vii) The amount in deposit, if any shall be transmitted to
the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith and same shall be
disbursed in accordance with the proportionate share
as per the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
viii) Registry is directed to transmit the original records to
the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
ix) Copy of this Judgment shall be sent to the Director
General & Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State
for information and necessary action in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GSS
