Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Karemma And Ors on 21 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 200515 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEKRTC BIDAR,
NOW THROUGH ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI 1. KAREMMA W/O AMBANNA SEDOLE
Location: HIGH AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
COURT OF
KARNATAKA VILLAGE DHUMANSUR
R/O HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR - 585330.
2. MAHENDRA S/O AMBANNA SEDOLE
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O REST AS ABOVE.
3. LAXMI D/O AMBANNA SEKOLE
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O REST AS ABOVE.
4. MOHAMED ASAD S/O M.A. GANI INAMDAR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUS DRIVER
R/O NOORKHAN AKHADA HUMNABAD,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR - 585330.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 - SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER JUDGMENT DATED 31-12-2018 AND AWARD
DATED 07-01-2019 IN MVC NO.171/2017 IN THE COURT OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT HUMNABAD.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY,
THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the Divisional Manager,
NEKRTC, Bidar, challenging the judgment and award dated
31.12.2018 passed in MVC.No.171/2017 by the Court of
Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Humnabad (for
short, 'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are
that the mother and the siblings of one Jitendra filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act') seeking
compensation for the death of Sri. Jitendra in a road
accident dated 08.02.2017. It is averred that when the
deceased was proceeding towards Humnabad on his
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-39/L-5348 by
following the traffic rules, the driver of the NEKRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA-38/F-616 drove the bus in a
rash and negligent manner and collided with the
motorcycle ridden by the deceased, as a result the
deceased fell down and sustained head injuries. Later, he
succumbed to the said injuries. It is contended that the
deceased was aged about 24 years and was doing private
job in Sequent Scientific Limited, Mangalore and was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to the accidental
death, the claimants have lost their dependency and
hence, sought for compensation.
3. The respondent No.2-corporation entered
appearance and filed objections denying the averments
made in the claim petition. It is averred that the age,
income and avocation of the deceased is falsely claimed
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
for higher compensation. It is further averred that there
was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle
and there was no contributory negligence on the part of
the driver of the bus. Hence, sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
4. The Tribunal framed the issues and recorded
the evidence of the parties. The claimants examined one
of them as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got
marked Exs.P-1 to P-16. The respondent did not adduce
any evidence. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition by assessing the income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- per month after deducting the permissible
deductions, added 50% of the assessed income under the
head of loss of future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards
the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Considering the age of the deceased as 26 years, a
multiplier of 17 was applied and compensation was
awarded at Rs.20,40,000/- under the head of loss of
dependency in total Rs.20,90,000/- at the rate of interest
6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
of the compensation amount. Being aggrieved, the
corporation is in appeal.
5. Sri. Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-Corporation submits that the
Tribunal has committed a grave error in deducting 1/3rd of
the income towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was bachelor.
It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed
further error in adding 50% of the assessed income under
the head of loss of future prospects, as it should have
been 40%. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, Sri. Basavaraj R. Math, learned
counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 supports the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and
submits that the deduction under the head of personal and
living expenses of the deceased has been rightly
considered by the Tribunal which does not call for any
modification. It is further submitted that the deceased
was on permanent employment with a fixed salary.
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
Hence, consideration of 50% addition under the head of
loss of future prospects of deceased is correct, which also
does not call for any modification. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of learned
counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the material available on record.
The only point that arises for our consideration in this
appeal is that:
i) Whether the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal calls for
interference in this appeal?
8. The pleading and evidence on record indicates
that the son of the claimant No.1 and the brother of the
other claimants i.e., Sri. Jitendra met with a road accident
on 08.02.2017, sustained grievous injuries and later, he
succumbed to those injuries. The claim petition and
evidence on record further indicate that the deceased
Jitendra was aged about 26 years and was working in a
private company namely Sequent Scientific Limited,
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
Mangalore and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In
support of the claim, the claimants produced Ex.P9 to P16,
copy of the letter of appointment, pay slips and letters
issued by the employer. Ex.P9, the appointment letter
clearly indicates the basic salary, HRA, conveyance
allowance, education allowance and ad-hoc allowance.
The said document further indicates that the services of
the deceased will be subject to termination at any time by
a three months' written notice by either side. By reading
the various clauses of the appointment order, it is clear
that the appointment of the deceased with the Sequent
Scientific Limited, Mangalore, was not a permanent
employment but only of fixed salary. Hence, as per the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and others1, the addition of future prospects would be
40% and not 50% as contended by the learned counsel for
the claimants and as considered by the Tribunal, the
(2017) 16 SCC 680
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted
herein below:
"59.3. While determining the income, an addition
of 50% of actual salary to the income of the
deceased towards future prospects, where the
deceased had a permanent job and was below the
age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased
was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be
read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or
on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant where
the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An
addition of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years
should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component."
[Emphasis supplied]
9. Insofar as, deduction of 1/3rd by the Tribunal
under the head of personal and living expenses is
concerned, it is as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma (Smt.) and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, it
would be useful to extract the relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment as under:
"31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors,
normally. 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
getting married in a short time, in which event
the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to
evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to
have his own income and will not be considered
as a dependant and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependant. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will
not be considered as dependants, because they
will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by
parents and siblings, only the mother would be
considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be
(2009) 6 SCC 121
- 10 -
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the
family. However, where the family of the bachelor
is large and dependent on the income, of the
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and
contribution to the family will be taken as two-
third."
[Emphasis supplied]
10. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the
considered view that the claimants being the widowed
mother and the siblings, the deduction should be 1/3rd
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held
that, the deduction towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased should depend on case to case
basis, even if the deceased is bachelor.
11. In the case on hand, the 1st claimant is the
widowed mother and other claimants are dependent-
siblings of the deceased and they were students as on the
- 11 -
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
date of death of the bread earner of the family. We are of
the considered view that the tendency of the deceased to
spend on himself would naturally be on lower side as there
were three dependents in the family. Hence, applying the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the
Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased.
12. Insofar as assessment of income, deduction
towards the personal and living expenses and application
of multiplier of 17 by the Tribunal is concerned, it remains
unaltered. Hence, the compensation is re-assessed as
under:
Loss of dependency: Rs.10,000/- + 40% future
prospects (Rs.4,000/-) x 12 x 17 - 1/3rd = Rs.19,04,000/-
13. Having re-assessed the compensation, we are
of the considered view that each of the claimants are
entitled for loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
- 12 -
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram & others3. The compensation
is re-assessed as under:
Particulars Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 19,04,000/-
Loss of consortium
1,20,000/-
(40,000/-x3)
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses and
transportation of dead 15,000/-
body
Total Rs.20,54,000/-
Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.20,54,000/- as against
Rs.20,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization
of the compensation amount.
14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following :
(2018) 18 SCC 130
- 13 -
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified and the
claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.20,54,000/- as
against Rs.20,90,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
iii. The appellant-corporation shall deposit
the entire compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal
within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
iv. On such deposit, the apportionment,
deposit and disbursement shall be
made in terms of award of the
Tribunal.
v. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
- 14 -
MFA NO.200515 OF 2019
vi. Draw modified award accordingly.
vii. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
MCR
CT: PS
