Karnataka High Court
Mahadevi @ Tippawwa And Ors vs The Managing Director on 14 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
MFA No. 200739 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200739 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHADEVI @ TIPPAWWA
W/O MUTTAPPA
@ HULIGEPPA BHANDARI @ ILAGER
AGE: 41 YEARS
OCC: H,H.WORK
2. IRESH S/O MUTTAPPA
@ HULIGEPPA BHANDARI @ ILAGER
AGE: 21 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT.
3. NAGESH S/O MUTTAPPA
@ HULIGEPPA BHANDARI @ ILAGER
AGE: 19 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT.
Digitally signed by
RENUKA
Location: HIGH
4. SANTOSH S/O MUTTAPPA @ HULIGEPPA
COURT OF AGE: 17 YEARS
KARNATAKA OCC: STUDENT
APPELLANT NO. 4 IS MINORS
REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.1
AS MINOR GUARDIAN
(NATURAL MOTHER)
ALL R/O SHEGUNASHI
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
MFA No. 200739 of 2019
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
PUNE MAHANAGAR
PARIWAHAN MAHAMANDAL LTD
(P.M.P.M.L), SHANKARSHEL ROAD
SWARAGATE, PUNE-411 037
(MAHARASHTRA)
(OWNER OF PMPML BUS NO. MH-12/HB-14)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR .H MANUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO. 2174/14 ON THE
FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV AND III
ADDL. DISTICT JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR AND ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2174/2014 BY THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV AND III ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
FROM RS. 9,58,500/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS. 14,99,000/-
WITH 12% INTEREST.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the claimants who have
questioned the negligence and quantum determined by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.2174/2014.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
2. The claimants who are widow and children filed
a claim petition for having lost one Muttappa in a road
traffic accident dated 31.05.2014. The claimants
contended that deceased was proceeding on a bike and
the driver of the offending bus came from the opposite
side in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the
bike on which deceased was proceeding. The claimants
contended that deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The claimants
contended that deceased was hardly aged 44 years and
was doing private service and was earning Rs.18,000/-
p.m.
3. The Tribunal in absence of income proof
notionally assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.9,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.10,53,000/- under
the head 'loss of dependency'. While examining
negligence, the Tribunal was not inclined to accept the
contention raised by the claimants. Though driver of the
offending bus was charge sheeted, the tribunal held that
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
even the rider of the bike has contributed to the accident
and therefore, fixed negligence in the ratio of 25:75.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
claimants and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
Findings on negligence:
5. Upon examining the facts and circumstances of
the case, it is evident that the driver of the offending bus
had been charge-sheeted and subjected to a criminal trial,
which establishes prima facie negligence on his part. It is a
settled principle of law that the filing of a charge sheet
against a driver signifies an element of culpability,
warranting the attribution of liability. However, it is equally
pertinent to note that the deceased, who was riding a
motorcycle at the time of the accident, was under an
obligation to exercise reasonable caution and adhere to
the rules of the road.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
6. In the present case, the evidence on record
suggests that the deceased rider failed to observe the
required degree of caution while proceeding on his bike,
contributing to the unfortunate head-on collision. While
the Tribunal and this Court have consistently adopted a
holistic approach in analyzing the factum of the accident
and the aspect of negligence, the circumstances here
necessitate a closer examination. The mere fact that a
charge sheet has been filed against the bus driver does
not absolve the deceased of all contributory negligence,
particularly when the nature of the accident, a head-on
collision, is taken into account. Thus, the apportionment of
negligence as determined by the Tribunal warrants
reconsideration and modification.
7. Considering the factors leading to the collision
and the respective responsibilities of the parties involved,
this Court finds it appropriate to re-evaluate the
apportionment of negligence. The accident involved a
head-on collision between the motorcycle and the bus, two
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
inherently different vehicles in terms of size, control, and
visibility. While the driver of the offending bus bears
significant responsibility for the collision, the deceased
rider cannot be entirely absolved of contributory
negligence, as the evidence indicates a lack of caution on
his part.
8. In view of the foregoing, and after a
comprehensive review of the material on record, this Court
deems it just and proper to modify the Tribunal's findings
on negligence. The negligence is accordingly re-fixed at a
ratio of 20:80, attributing 20% negligence to the deceased
motorcycle rider and 80% negligence to the driver of the
offending bus. This revised apportionment strikes a fair
balance, acknowledging the substantial culpability of the
bus driver while recognizing the contributory negligence of
the deceased. The findings of the Tribunal are thus
modified to this extent.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
Regarding quantum:
9. The Tribunal having notionally assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-, however, erred in
not adding future prospects. If the income is assessed at
Rs.9,000/- and 25% future prospects is added, the
income is taken at Rs.11,250/-. There are four
dependents and therefore, 1/4th needs to be deducted.
After deducting 1/4th, the income is assessed at
Rs.8,437.5/- and by applying the multiplier of 13, the
compensation payable under the head 'loss of dependency'
works out to Rs.13,16,250/-.
10. Since there are four dependents, a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each is awarded towards loss of consortia and
Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of estate and funeral
expenses'. In all, under conventional heads, a sum of
Rs.1,90,000/- is awarded. The accident is of the year
2014. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.1, 10% escalation for every
three years which works out to Rs.38,000/- is added. The
total compensation re-determined by this Court works out
to Rs.15,44,250/- as against Rs.12,78,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.2174/2014 is modified;
(iii) The appellants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,66,250/- which shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization;
(iv) The negligence is re-fixed in the ratio
of 20:80. 20% on the deceased and 80% on the
driver of the offending bus;
(v) The respondent is hereby directed to
deposit 80% of the enhanced compensation;
2017 ACJ 2700 SC
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8542
(vi) Since negligence is fixed in the ratio of
20:80, the respondent is liable to deposit the
differential 5% of the compensation determined
by the Tribunal;
(vii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
remitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
