Karnataka High Court

Sri Gopala vs The Managing Director on 22 October, 2024

                                          -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:42518
                                                   MFA No. 8062 of 2016
                                            C/W MFA.CROB No. 33 of 2023



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                        BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
                MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8062 OF 2016 (MV-D)
                                          C/W
                       MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 33 OF 2023 (MV-D)


                IN MFA No. 8062/2016

                BETWEEN:

                KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
                TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
                K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
                BANGALORE-560 027.
                BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
                                                            ...APPELLANT
                (BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

                AND:
Digitally
signed by       1. GOPALA,
NANDINI R          S/O RANGASWAMAIAH,
Location:          AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
High Court of
Karnataka
                2. CHANDRAMMA,
                   W/O GOPALA,
                   AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

                3. PAVITHRA,
                   D/O GOPALA,
                   AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.

                   MINOR REP. BY R-1 FATHER GOPALA.
                             -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:42518
                                    MFA No. 8062 of 2016
                             C/W MFA.CROB No. 33 of 2023



     ALL ARE R/AT BAGUR VILLAGE,
     NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK-572 216.
     TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARASWATHI M, AND SRI CHETHAN D T,
    ADVOCATES FOR R-1 TO R-3)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.798/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER,    ADDITIONAL    MACT-17,    GUBBI,   AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.9,20,060/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.


IN MFA. CROB NO. 33/2023

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI GOPALA,
     S/O RANGASWAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

2.   SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
     S/O GOPALA,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

3.   PAVITHRA,
     D/O GOPALA,
     AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

     ALL ARE R/O BAGUR VILLAGE,
     NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
     TUMAKURU DIST.
                                  ...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SMT. SARASWATHI M AND SRI CHETHAN D.T. ,
ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
                              -3-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:42518
                                     MFA No. 8062 of 2016
                              C/W MFA.CROB No. 33 of 2023



TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027.
(OWNER AND MAINTAINING
THE VEHICLE KSRTC BUS
BEARING REG. NO. KA-17-F-1439)
                                               ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H.R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

    THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 R/W
SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT,   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 02.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.798/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
ADDITIONAL      MACT-17, GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Smt. H.R. Renuka, the learned counsel

appearing for appellant-KSRTC and Smt. Saraswathi, the

learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are the

petitioners before the Tribunal.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in

MVC No.798/2014 dated 02.06.2016, the respondent -

KSRTC has approached this Court in MFA No.8062/2016

NC: 2024:KHC:42518

and the petitioners have approached this Court in MFA

CROB No.33/2023.

3. The brief facts are as below:

On 02.03.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased boy

aged about 16 years, B.G. Deepak, was riding his bike

No.KA.04.EK.4565 on NH 206 at Nitturu Hobli, Gubbi

taluk and the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA.17.F.1439 came

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

deceased B.G. Deepak, resulting in his death. It was

contended that the deceased was aged 18 years and was a

Mechanic at Puncture shop at Islampura gate and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to the

family and therefore, the petitioners who are the father,

mother and sister are entitled for the compensation.

4. The respondent- KSRTC appeared before the

Tribunal and resisted the petition contending that the

negligence was on the part of the deceased B.G. Deepak

and there was no such negligence on the part of the driver

of the bus. It was stated that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was

NC: 2024:KHC:42518

paid to the petitioners towards interim compensation and

therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings,

appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and on the

basis of the evidence let in, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for a

compensation of Rs.9,20,000/- under the following heads:

           Loss of dependency                  Rs.8,40,060/-
           Loss of Estate                      Rs. 50,000/-
           Transportation charges              Rs.   5,000/-
           Funeral and obsequies               Rs. 25,000/-
           Total                               Rs.9,20,060/-

6. Being aggrieved by the fastening the liability on

the respondent -KSRTC and contending that the quantum

of the compensation is on the higher side, MFA

No.8062/2016 has been filed by it. The petitioners,

contending that the compensation awarded is on the lower

side, have filed MFA CROB 33/2023 and sought for

enhancement of the compensation.

NC: 2024:KHC:42518

7. The learned counsel appearing for KSRTC would

submit that the deceased B.G. Deepak was aged about 16

years as per Ex.R4 which shows that his date of birth was

'28.4.1998'. Therefore, she has submitted that the

Tribunal could not have assessed the compensation by

adopting normal procedure taking the notional income.

Further, it is submitted that deceased being a minor,

could not have ridden the motor cycle and therefore, no

negligence can be attributed to the bus driver. It is

submitted that the investigation papers show that the

deceased himself drove the vehicle without having any

valid driving licence, he being a minor and as such,

fastening negligence to the entire extent on the driver of

the bus is not proper and correct.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents who are cross objectors submits that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower

side. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously

considered the multiplier by taking the age of the younger

NC: 2024:KHC:42518

parent and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the age of the deceased

should have been considered by the Tribunal. Therefore,

she has sought for enhancement of compensation.

9. It is settled principles of law that non

possession of the valid driving licence cannot be a ground

to attribute negligence to the said person. The negligence

on the part of the bus driver as held by the Tribunal

cannot be faulted with, as the deceased is a minor. There

cannot be any doubt that the deceased was minor as on

the date of the accident and therefore, the very contention

would result in attributing negligence in entirety on the

bus driver. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel

appearing for appellant- KSRTC that the negligence or

contributory negligence has to be attributed to the

deceased B.G. Deepak cannot be accepted.

AIR 2017 SC 5157

NC: 2024:KHC:42518

10. Coming to the quantum of compensation

awarded, the Tribunal has taken the age of the mother of

the deceased to adopt the multiplier of '15', by taking the

income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month awarded

the compensation. It is relevant to note that though the

multiplier has to be taken with reference to the age of the

deceased, the deceased being a minor, aged about 16

years at the time of the accident, it cannot be construed

that he is earning Rs.7,000/- per month by working in the

puncture shop. In fact, there is no acceptable material to

show that deceased was working in the puncture shop and

earning Rs.7,000/- per month. In the light of these facts

and circumstances, it would be futile to enter into the

details of the assessment of the compensation. The age of

the deceased being 16 years, it cannot be disputed that he

was earning something and was contributing to the family.

But, definitely, it would not be like that of an adult

member of the family. In that view of the matter, the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal also

cannot be found fault with. Under these circumstances,

NC: 2024:KHC:42518

the appeal as well as cross objections are devoid of merits

and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper

and adequate. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The appeal in MFA No.8062/2016 filed by the KSRTC

as well as the Cross Objection in MFA CROB No. 33/2023

filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed.