Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller, ... vs Smt.Buduma W/O Abdulsab Anegundi on 7 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
MFA No. 104469 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104469 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C, BAGALKOT DIVISION,
BAGALKOT. (OWNER OF THE NWKRTC
BUS BEARING REG.NO KA-29/F-1305).
2. THE SELF INSURANCE FUND,
N.W.K.R.T.C, BAGALKOT DIVISION,
BAGALKOT, BOTH APPELLANTS ARE
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BUDUMA W/O. ABDULSAB ANEGUNDI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD.
2. MAHAMMADRAFI S/O. ABDULSAB ANEGUNDI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T 3. MAILUSAB S/O. ABDULSAB ANEGUNDI,
Location: HIGH AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SADDAM S/O. ABDULSAB ANEGUNDI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. WARD NO.6,
KONCHIKORAWAR ONI, GULEDAGUDDA-587203,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND M.A.C.T-X, HUNGUND IN M.V.C NO.338/2016 DATED
01.09.2018 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
MFA No. 104469 of 2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the NWKRTC challenging the
liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded
in the judgment & award dated 01.09.2018 passed in
M.V.C.No.338/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
MACT-X, Hungund (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading to filing this appeal are that
on 30.12.2015 at about 6:00 AM one Abdulsab Imamsab
Anegundi was travelling as a passenger in bus bearing
registration No.KA-29F-1305 from Guledagudda to
Kamatagi. When the bus came near Kamatagi cross on
Bagalkot-Hungund State highway, the bus was stopped to
alight the passengers. At that time, the said Abdulsab
while alighting from the bus lost his balance as the driver
of the bus suddently and negligently moved the bus,
resultantly, Abdulsab fell down and sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is
averred that the deceased Abdulsab was aged about 55
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
years at the time of the accident. He was doing coolie
work and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Respondent
No.1 is the wife and respondents No.2 to 4 are the
children of the deceased Abdulsab. It is further averred
that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent
driving of the bus by its driver and sought for
compensation.
3. The appellants herein/Corporation entered
appearance before the Tribunal, filed objections and
denied the averments made in the claim petition. They
have denied the age, income and avocation and accident
in question. It is further averred that in the said bus, only
one passenger was travelling from Guledagudda to
Kamatagi. The said passenger took ticket and got down
from the bus at Kamatagi cross, then the bus run on its
route. There was no accident caused to anybody by the
bus in question and the Police have wrongly implicated the
said bus. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
4. During the trial, the respondents/claimants
examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked
8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Appellant/Corporation
examined its driver as RW1 and got marked one document
as Ex.R1. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence,
awarded total compensation of Rs.7,84,400/- along with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of
petition till realization and further directed the
appellant/Corporation to deposit the said amount. Being
aggrieved by the fastening of liability as well as award of
compensation, the present appeal is filed by the
appellant/Corporation.
5. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
6. Sri. S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants/Corporation submits that the alleged
accident in question has taken place on 28.12.2015 at
6:00 a.m. and the complaint at Ex.P1 is filed by the son of
the deceased Abdulsab who was not at the spot of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
accident. The said complaint is filed based on someone's
information. It is further submitted that after two days of
the complaint, the jurisdictional Police seized the bus in
question. He argues that initially burden of proving that
the accident and negligence is on the part of the
respondents/claimants which they have not discharged
properly and without appreciating the same, the Tribunal
has proceeded and fastened the liability on the
appellant/Corporation. It is further submitted that insofar
as the award of compensation by the Tribunal is
concerned, it assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.9,000/- per month without any basis and evidence. It is
argued that the award of interest by the Tribunal is also on
higher side which requires to be modified.
7. Per contra, Sri. Gururaj R.Turamari, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants supports
the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and
submits that no doubt that PW2/son of the deceased was
not present at the time of the accident as the deceased
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
was travelling from Guledagudda to Kamatagi alone and
based on the information given by one Saddam Sharifsab
Bhudihal, a complaint has been filed at Ex.P1 and after
detailed investigation, the jurisdictional Police filed
chargesheet against the driver of the bus. Hence, the
Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the
appellant/Corporation. He further argues that the award of
compensation by the Tribunal is just and proper and does
not require any modification. He also submits that the
Tribunal has committed error in deducting 50% of the
assessed income of the deceased under the head of
'personal and living expenses', which is contrary to the
settled principals of law and the appropriate deduction
would be 1/4 as the claimants are wife and three children
of the deceased. Thus, he seeks for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/Corporation and learned counsel for the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
respondents/claimants, perused the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal and the Tribunal records.
9. The points that would arise for consideration in
this appeal are as follows:
(a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the
driver of the bus was negligent?
(b) Whether the award of compensation of the
Tribunal is on higher side?
10. Answer to the above points is in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
11. The averments made in the claim petition as
well as the evidence on record indicate that on 30.12.2015
at about 6:00 AM, deceased Sri. Abdulsab was the
passenger of bus bearing registration No.KA-29/F-1305
and was travelling from Guledagudda to Kamatagi. When
he was about to alight the bus at Kamatagi cross, the
driver of the bus suddenly and negligently moved the bus,
resultantly, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
injuries to his head and succumbed to those injuries on
spot.
12. The evidence on record indicate that based on
the information of Saddam Sharifsab Bhudihal, the son of
the deceased/PW2 gave complaint to the Police on
30.12.2012 at Ex.P1 informing about the accident and
based on the said information, the jurisdictional Police
registered the crime and carried out the investigation. The
evidence available on record indicate that the jurisdictional
Police seized the bus and recorded the statement of the
complainant and other witnesses. After completion of
investigation, filed chargesheet against the driver of the
bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and
304 of IPC read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
13. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 indicate that the
deceased Abdulsab was traveling from Guledagudda to
Kamatagi. The said fact is also admitted by RW1 in his
cross-examination that the deceased was traveling from
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
Guledagudda to Kamatagi. On further perusal of cross-
examination of RW1, it indicates that the deceased was
the lone passenger in the bus and the driver and other two
persons were traveling in the same bus. When things
stood thus, it is difficult to except any third person to
depose or to give information to Police with regard to the
accident in question more so when the accident has taken
place at 6:30 AM at Kamatagi cross. The chargesheet
material available on record clearly indicate that the one
Saddam Sharifsab Bhudihal had telephonically called PW2
and informed that his father has met with an accident and
died and his body is lying near the Kamatagi cross. Hence,
it can be fairly held that the deceased has succumbed to
the injuries while alighting the bus and the accident is
caused by the negligence of the driver of the bus.
Comparing the aforesaid statement of Saddam Sharifsab
Bhudihal, PW2/son of the deceased and cross-examination
of RW1, it is clear that the deceased was traveling in bus
bearing registration No.KA-29/F-1305 from Guledagudda
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
to Kamatagi and he was alighting the bus at Kamatagi
cross and met with an accident.
14. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants/Corporation is that the claimants have failed to
discharge initial burden of proving with regard to the
accident in question and is required to be rejected for the
aforementioned reasons. Admittedly, after investigation,
the Police filed chargesheet against the driver of the bus,
which further makes clear that the driver of the bus was
negligent in causing the accident in question. The
chargesheet material clearly indicate that Saddam
Sharifsab Bhudihal has given the information about the
accident and death of the deceased to PW2 and in turn he
has filed the complaint to Police. Nothing has prevented
the Corporation for examining the said Saddam Sharifsab
Bhudihal as witness before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the
Corporation has also not challenged the chargesheet in
any of the proceedings. In view of the same, this Court
does not find any error in the finding recorded by the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
Tribunal with regard to the negligence and the liability
fastened on the appellants/Corporation calling for
interference in this appeal.
15. Insofar as the award of compensation of the
Tribunal is concerned, this Court is of the considered view
that the Tribunal without any evidence assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and
awarded 7% interest on the compensation which is on
higher side. Taking note of the notional income chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
this Court re-assesses the income of the deceased at
Rs.8,000/- per month and modify the award of interest at
6% per annum as against 7% awarded by the Tribunal.
16. The Tribunal has also committed an error in
deducting 50% of the assessed income towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased. This Court while
re-assessing and re-computing the compensation amount,
holds that the appropriate deduction would be 1/4 as the
respondents/claimants are the wife and three children of
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
the deceased. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
modified compensation on the head of loss of dependency
as under:
Rs.8,000 [income] + 10% [future prospects] x 12
[months] x 11 [multiplier] less ¼ [personal expenses] =
Rs.8,71,200/-.
17. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to
modified compensation on the following heads:
Particulars Amount
(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency 8,71,200/-
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Loss of consortium [Rs.40,000 X 4 1,60,000/-
dependents]
Total 10,61,200/-
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.10,61,200/- as against
Rs.7,84,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.
18. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.10,61,200/- as against
Rs.7,84,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
payment.
d) The Corporation shall deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with accrued interest
before the Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from today.
e) The apportionment, deposit and
disbursement of enhanced compensation
shall be made as per award of the Tribunal.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4943
f) Registry to transmit the records forthwith to
the Tribunal.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
h) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
