Karnataka High Court
Smt Sabita Devi vs The Managing Director Bmtc on 13 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
MFA No. 3003 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3003 OF 2021(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SABITA DEVI,
W/O LATE DEVENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
2. MASTER. GOLU KUMAR,
S/O LATE DEVENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
3. MASTER. TONU KUMAR,
S/O LATE DEVENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
4. KUM. SHALU KUMARI
D/O LATE DEVENDRA SINGH,
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF APPELLANT NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
KARNATAKA
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT
AS A NUTURAL GUARDIAN.
6. SMT. KISMATI KUWAR
W/O LATE SURAJ SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT TALIMAPUR VILLAGE AND POST,
SIWAN DISTRICT,
BIHAR STATE - 841 407
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
MFA No. 3003 of 2021
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTHINAGAR, DOUBLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 27
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 17.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1313/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE AND XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
(SCCH-23), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Gurudev Prasad K.T, learned counsel for
the appellants as well as Sri. F.S.Dabali, learned counsel
for respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
2. The first appellant being the wife, appellant Nos.2
to 4 being the minor children and appellant No.5 being the
mother of the deceased Devendra Singh moved an
application claiming compensation of Rs.36,00,000/-, on
the ground that the deceased Devendra Singh (herein
after referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity) died in a
road traffic accident that occurred on 28.12.2018. The
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru which dealt
with the case as M.V.C No.1313/2019 rendered orders on
17.07.2019 awarding a sum of Rs.16,45,000/- as
compensation. However, projecting that the sum awarded
is disproportionate to the loss sustained, the present
appeal is preferred by the claimants.
3. Sri. Gurudev Pradsad K.T representing the
appellants contends that the only grievance of the
appellants is that the tribunal failed to take the exact
earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident.
4. Learned counsel states that the deceased by
working as labourer at Ahuja company was earning
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
Rs.16,000/- per month by the date of accident. Learned
counsel further submits that though the appellants
produced Ex.P-12- salary slips and Ex.P-13 Bank Account
Statement, the tribunal without considering those
documents took the notional income of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded meager sum as
compensation under the head loss of dependency. Learned
counsel also states that the accident occurred in the year
2018 and the for relevant period, the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as
Rs.12,500/- per month for settling the claims and atleast
the said figure should have been considered by the
tribunal. Learned counsel ultimately seeks for
enhancement of compensation.
5. The submission that is made by Sri.F.S.Dabali on
the other hand is that the appellants failed to produce
convincing evidence to show that the deceased was
earning Rs.16,000/- per month. However, learned counsel
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
Sri.F.S.Dabali did not raise any objection for taking the
notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month as sought for.
6. Undisputedly, the deceased was working at Ahuja
company as labourer by the date of accident. Having
considered the submission that is made by both the
learned counsel, this Court considers desirable to take the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.12,500/- per
month. As the deceased died at the age of 43 years, 25%
of the earnings are required to be added towards future
prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, the
dependents being 5 in number, 1/4th of the earnings of
the deceased is required to be deducted towards personal
and living expenses which the deceased would have
incurred for himself had he been alive. Also as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla
Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592, the appropriate
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
multiplier to be applied is '14'. Thus, with the said
parameters, the compensation which the appellants are
entitled to under the head loss of dependency is as
under:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income 12,500-00
Annual income 1,50,000-00
Add 25% towards future 1,87,500-00
prospects
Deduct 1/4th towards 1,40,625-00
personal and living
expenses
Loss of dependency, on 19,68,750-00
applying appropriate
multiplier 14
7. Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.19,68,750/- under the head loss of dependency.
Together with the said amount, the appellants are entitled
to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate. The first appellant being the wife of
the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
spousal consortium. Appellants 2 to 4 being the children of
the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
parental consortium. The 5th appellant being the mother of
the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
filial consortium. Thus, the compensation which the
appellants are entitled to is as under:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 19,68,750-00
Funeral expenses 15,000-00
Loss of estate 15,000-00
Loss of spousal consortium 40,000-00
Loss of parental consortium 40,000-00
Loss of filial consortium 40,000-00
Total 21,18,750-00
8. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.16,45,000/- as compensation. But in the light
of the discussion that went on supra, the justifiable sum
which the appellants are entitled to as compensation is
Rs.21,18,750/-. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with
the following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bengaluru through
orders in M.V.C. 1313/2019 dated 17.07.2019
is enhanced from Rs.16,45,000/- to
Rs.21,18,750/-.
iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till the date of deposit.
iv. The appellants are not entitled for any interest
over the enhanced sum for the period of delay
of 133 days as per orders in IA No.1/2021.
v. Respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced
sum within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
are entitled to equal share.
NC: 2024:KHC:46012
vii. Appellant Nos.1 and 5 are permitted to
withdraw their respective shares out of the
enhanced sum, on deposit.
viii. The amount that fell to the share of appellants
2 to 4 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any
nationalized bank till they attain the age of
majority.
ix. On they attaining the age of majority, they are
entitled to withdraw the same along with
accrued interest.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS,VS
