Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Sri Mallesh on 21 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42009
MFA No. 1300 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1300 OF 2017(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
CUM OWNER OF KSRTC
BUS BEARING NO.KA-09-F-4988
AND INTERNAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
KSRTC, K.H. DOUBLE ROAD,
SHANTHINAGARA,
BANGALORE HAVING DIVISION OFFICE
AT MANDYA, KSRTC BUS DEPOT,
M.C. ROAD,
MANDYA-571 606,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
NANDINI R
Location: High 1. SRI. MALLESH,
Court of S/O SIDDAIAH,
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
2. SMT. LEELAMMA,
W/O MALLESH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT 1ST CROSS,
MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42009
MFA No. 1300 of 2017
CHIKKEGOWDANADODDI,
MANDYA CITY-571 660
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.G. SATHEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1257/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.14,19,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. None appears for the respondents, despite the
matter being listed for final hearing.
3. This appeal is filed by the appellant-KSRTC
challenging the judgment and award in MVC
No.1257/2013 dated 16.09.2016 by the learned I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & CJM-MACT, Mandya, whereby the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,90,000/- as
NC: 2024:KHC:42009
compensation on account of death of the daughter of the
petitioners.
4. The case of the petitioners as found from the
records is that on 10.10.2013 the deceased-Ramya was
riding a Honda activa and she met with an accident with
the bus belonging to the appellant-KSRTC herein and she
succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
5. The petitioners, who were parents of the
deceased-Ramya have approached the Tribunal for
compensation contending that the accident occurred due
to the negligence on part of the bus driver and the
appellant has resisted the petition contending that there
was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and the
compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and imaginary.
6. Appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal
and after evidence was let in, the Tribunal held that the
appellant is liable to pay the compensation of a sum of
Rs.14,19,000/- under the following heads:
NC: 2024:KHC:42009
Heads Amount
Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of dependency Rs. 14,04,000/-
Transportation Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs. 14,19,000/-
7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.6,500/- p.m., added 50% to towards
'future prospects' and deducted 50% towards 'personal
expenses' of deceased and by adding a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and 'conveyance',
awarded the compensation as above mentioned
compensation.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the deceased-Ramya was working as
Anganwadi teacher and the appellant has filed an
application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151
of CPC, showing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,963/-
and therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the
income of the deceased was Rs.6,500/-p.m. It is pertinent
to note that the petitioners had not produced any
NC: 2024:KHC:42009
documentary evidence to show the income of the
deceased. Therefore, when it was the specific contention
of the petitioners before the Tribunal that the deceased
was working as Anganwadi teacher, it was incumbent upon
them to produce cogent material. When the appellant has
filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, which
would show the income of the deceased, the same
deserves to be considered by this Court, as it would help
this Court to assess just and proper compensation.
Hence, the application is allowed.
9. On considering the certificate issued by the
employer of the deceased, it is evident that she was
earning a sum of Rs.4,963/-, which is rounded off to
Rs.5,000/-. The deceased being unmarried, personal
expenses to be deducted at 50% in Rs.2,500/- she being
employed, future prospects to be added at 50%, resulting
in the multiplicand to be Rs.3,750/-
[5,000+2,500]=7,500/2. Hence, the compensation under
NC: 2024:KHC:42009
the head 'loss of dependency' is calculated as
[Rs.3,750X12X18] =Rs.8,10,000/-.
10. By following the principle of the Hon'ble Apex
Court laid in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others the petitioners are
also entitled to a sum of Rs.84,700/- towards the 'loss of
estate', 'funeral expenses' and 'consortium' after giving
escalation of 10% at every 3 years. Therefore, the
petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,94,700/- the
impugned judgment is accordingly modified.
11. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not
considered the sum of Rs.50,000/- which was paid as
mentioned in page No.3 of the impugned judgment.
Therefore, the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has been paid as
ex gratia, to the petitioners has to be deducted from the
compensation amount. As such, the petitioners are
entitled to a sum of Rs.8,94,700/-.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC:42009
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
16.09.2016 passed in MVC No.1257/2013
by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a
compensation of Rs.8,94,700/- instead of
Rs.14,19,000/-, together with interest at
6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of payment.
(iii) Respondents are directed to deposit the
compensation amount within a period of 4
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of this order.
iv) The rest of the order of the Tribunal
remained unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
