Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Nekrtc vs Kanteppa S/O Late Hanumanthappa on 31 May, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
MFA No. 101632 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101632 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL.
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KANTEPPA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
2. SMT. HANUMAMMA W/O. KANTEPPA,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
3. SANJEEVKUMAR PUJARI S/O. KANTEPPA,
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
ALL ARE R/O. WARD NO.13, UPPAR STREET,
KANAKAGIRI, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
Location: HIGH 4. BASAVARAJ S/O. GAVISIDDAPAP KWATI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF NEKRTC
BUS, ITS REGN. NO.KA-32/F-2003
R/O. HANAKUNTI VILLAGE, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583227.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.132/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT GANGAVATHI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,86,600/- WITH INTEREST AT
6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALIZATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
MFA No. 101632 of 2022
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, G BASAVARAJA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for orders, it is taken up for
final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for both
the parties.
2. The appellant-NEKRTC is before this Court being
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.08.2021
passed in MVC No.132/2019 on the file of learned Senior
Civil Judge & Member M.A.T.C., Gangavathi (for short,
'Tribunal'), challenging the liability as well as the quantum of
compensation.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.
4. The brief relevant facts leading to filing of this
appeal are that, the petitioners, who are the father, mother
and brother of the deceased Hanumanthappa, filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
seeking compensation for the accidental death of
Hanumanthappa that took place on 17.02.2018 involving
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
motorcycle bearing Chasiss No.MD634KF4692C67813 and
NEKRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-32/F-2003. It is
further stated that, as on the date of accident, one Lalasab
was riding the motorcycle and the deceased was a pillion
rider.
5. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2/NEKRTC
appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement
denying the entire claim petition averments and contended
that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the
part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e.one Lalsab and sought
for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Before the Tribunal, petitioner No.2-mother of the
deceased examined herself as PW1, one eyewitness as PW2
and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16; whereas
respondent No.1-driver of NEKRTC bus examined himself as
RW1 and no documents were got marked on respondents'
side. Having heard the arguments of both the parties and
based on the material on record, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded a total compensation of
Rs.18,86,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
from the date of petition till realization and held respondent
No.2-NEKRTC liable to pay the compensation. Being
aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2-NEKRTC is before
this Court in this appeal questioning liability as well as
quantum of compensation.
7. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti for the
appellant-NEKRTC and learned counsel Sri.Harish Maigur for
respondents No.1 to 3 and perused the appeal papers along
with original records.
8. Sri.S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-NEKRTC would submit that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle on the ground that the rider of the
motorcycle after overtaking one lorry dashed to the rare
right side emergency door of the bus. He submits that the
damage to the right side emergency door of the bus itself
clearly indicates how rash the rider of the motorcycle has
driven his motorcycle, but, the Tribunal merely relying on
the Police documents and without considering the evidence
on record has erroneously come to the conclusion that the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
driver of the bus alone is held responsible for the alleged
accident and saddled entire liability on the appellant, which
is illegal and erroneous on the part of the Tribunal. Further,
learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal has
erroneously and exorbitantly awarded the compensation
under the head of loss of dependency as well as under other
heads. The compensation awarded under conventional heads
is also exorbitant. On all these grounds, he sought for
allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, Sri.Harish Maigur, learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 to 3-claimants would submit
that the Tribunal has passed the judgment and award in
accordance with law and there are no grounds to
interference with the impugned judgment and award and
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers along with original
records, the following point would arise for consideration:
Whether the appellant-NEKRTC made out any
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and
award as to the liability and quantum of compensation?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
Above point is answered in the negative for the
following reasons:
11. We have carefully examined the material placed
before this Court including the original records and on
perusal of the same, it is clear that on the basis of the
complaint filed by one Lalasab who is examined before the
Tribunal as PW2, Kanakagiri Police have registered the case
against the driver (i.e.Basavaraj-RW1) of the NEKRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA-32/F-2003 for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of
IPC and submitted the FIR to the Court. Thereafter, the
Police have rushed to the spot and conducted inquest
panchanama, spot panchanama, seizer mahazar, obtained
MV Report, PM Report, recorded statements of the witnesses
and submitted the chargesheet against the driver of the
NEKRTC bus for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC.
12. The documents produced by the petitioners also
substantiated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. RW2-
Basavaraj, who was the driver of the offending bus has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
clearly admitted that after investigation, the Police have
submitted the chargesheet against him. The respondents
have not questioned the chargesheet submitted by the
concerned Police. Even the respondents have not placed any
legal evidence to discard the oral and documentary evidence
placed by the petitioners. It is pertinent to note here that,
though RW1 is respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, has not
made appearance and was placed exparte. RW1 has not filed
his written statement explaining the circumstances as to how
the accident has occurred. For the first time, before the
Tribunal, he has deposed in his evidence that the accident
has occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the
rider of the motorcycle which is not sustainable under law.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.
13. With regard to compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal relying on decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr1; National Insurance
AIR 2009 SC 3104
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2 and also
taking note of chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, has considered notional income of the
deceased at Rs.11,750/- per month; adopted multiplier of
18; added 40% of the assessed income of the deceased
towards future prospects; deducted 50% towards personal
expenses of the deceased since he was bachelor and
accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed compensation under
the head 'loss of dependency' at Rs.17,76,600/- (i.e.
Rs.11,750 + 40% X 12 X 18 X 50%) which is in accordance
with law and in terms of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court
referred to supra.
14. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the
claimants under the head 'loss of consortium' at Rs.80,000/-
(i.e.Rs.40,000 X 2 dependants) apart from Rs.15,000/-
under the head 'transportation of dead body and funeral
expenses' and Rs.15,000/- under the head 'loss of estate',
which is also in accordance with law and in terms of decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi referred to
supra.
2017 (16) SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7256-DB
15. On re-appreciation, re-consideration and
re-examination of the entire evidence on record, we do not
find any illegalities/infirmities in the finding of the Tribunal
and the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is just and proper. Thus, we answer above point in
the negative.
16. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is dismissed.
b) Amount in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith along with
original records.
c) Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
