Karnataka High Court
The Manager Bmtc vs Khemaram Choudhary on 11 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45528
MFA No. 725 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2024 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER BMTC.,
SHANTHINAGAR,
DOUBLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KHEMARAM CHOUDHARY,
S/O LATE PUNARAM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Digitally signed by 2. DINESH K. R. CHOUDHARY,
AASEEFA
PARVEEN S/O KHEMARAM CHOUDHARY,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SUNIL K R CHOUDHARY,
S/O KHEMARAM CHOUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE
R/AT NO.77, 12TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H. T.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45528
MFA No. 725 of 2024
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2023 PASSED IN
MVC NO.5105/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER, MACT-15 BENGALURU SCCH-15, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.22,95,056/- WITH INTEREST AT
6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE
OF DEPOSIT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Sri.Jagadeesh H.T., learned counsel for respondents
No.1 to 3.
2. Respondent No.1 being the husband, respondents
No.2 and 3 being the sons of the deceased Sharadha
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for brevity) filed a
petition claiming compensation raising the ground that the
deceased died in a road traffic accident.
3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru,
which dealt with the case as MVC No.5105/2022 rendered
orders on 04.11.2023 awarding a sum of Rs.22,95,056/- as
compensation as against the claim for Rs.30,00,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:45528
Projecting that the amount awarded as compensation is
excessive and exorbitant, the present appeal is filed.
4. Sri.F.S.Dabali learned counsel representing the
appellant contends that the deceased was a home maker. She
was assisting her husband and sons i.e. respondents No.1 to 3.
However, taking the notional earnings of the deceased as
Rs.15,500/- per month, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.21,70,056/- under the head loss of dependency and
aggrieved by the same this appeal is filed.
5. The submission that is made by Sri.Jagadeesh H.T.
on the other hand is that the compensation granted by the
Tribunal is based on the pleadings and the material that is
brought on record and therefore the present appeal is not
maintainable.
6. The version of respondents No.1 to 3 is that the
deceased by running a fancy store was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month. The fact that the family of the deceased was running a
fancy store is clear through the contents of Ex.P2 complaint
also. The same was observed by the Tribunal at para 16 of the
impugned order. Though the version of respondents No.1 to
NC: 2024:KHC:45528
3/claimants is that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.15,500/-
only per month. Whatever be the earnings of either of the
spouses, he/she would spent major portion of those earnings
towards the welfare of the family members which includes the
spouse, children and parents. Therefore, this Court does not
find any infirmity in the Tribunal taking the notional income as
Rs.15,500/- per month, applying the required parameters and
awarding a sum of Rs.21,70,056/- under the head loss of
dependency. The award of the Tribunal thus is valid on all
aspects. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present
appeal is not maintainable.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
