Allowed

The Managing Director, v. Chandravva W/O Antravalleppa Bevinamarad

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2019MFA/24327/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant KSRTC's appeal against the Tribunal's award in a motor accident case. The court reassessed the compensation, recalculating loss of dependency based on notional income and the deceased's age, and increased the total award to Rs. 7,72,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are modified to increase the total compensation to Rs. 7,72,000/- comprising loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of

The Managing Director, Vs Chandravva W/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

M.F.A.NO.24327/2013 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NORTH-WEST DIVISION, KSRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580020, R/BY DEPOT MANAGER, NWKRTC, RANEBENNUR DEPOT, RANEBENNUR-581115, DIST: HAVERI.

¶8

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI C.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SMT.CHANDRAVVA W/O ANTRAVALEPPA BEVINAMARAD,

¶13

AGE : 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O AREMALLAPUR VILLAGE,

¶14

TQ: RANEBENNUR-581115, DIST: HAVERI.

¶15

SRI ANTRAVALLEPPA S/O NINGAPPA BEVINAMARAD, AGE : 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. – DO –

¶16

SRI MANJUNATH

¶17

S/O ANTRAVALLEPPA BEVINAMARAD, AGE : 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. – DO –

¶18

¶19

KUMARI. BHUMIKA D/O ANTRAVALLEPPA BEVINAMARAD, AGE : 3 YEARS, OCC; NIL, R/O – DO –

¶20

SINCE RESPONDENT NO.4 IS MINOR, SHE WAS R/BY HER NATURAL MOTHER & MINOR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADV. FOR R1 TO 4) (R.4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R.1)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.952/2012, ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 10.05.2013 passed in MVC.No.952/2012 by the

¶27

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur (‘the Tribunal’ for short), whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶28

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that, on 30.09.2012 Ningappa was driving canter vehicle bearing registration No.KA.27/A-4423 from Kavalettu to Koda village via Makanur-Halageri road to unload the bricks. Ningappa was driving the said vehicle by following the traffic rules and regulations and when it came near Kusugar cross, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.27/F-295 came from opposite side driven in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed dashed against the Canter vehicle. Due to heavy impact of the said accident, Ningappa sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Claimants are parents and brothers of the deceased.

¶30

In order to establish their claim, the

¶31

claimant No.2 has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.13. On the other hand the corporation neither examined any witness nor produced any document.

¶32

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,53,000/- with 6%

¶33

¶34

interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the

¶35

corporation has filed this appeal.

¶36

The only contention contended by the learned counsel appearing for corporation that, the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased Ningappa has taken Rs.7,000/- per month even though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but they have not produced any documents to establish the same. The Tribunal without any basis has taken income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- which is in higher side. Hence, he sought for reduction of the same.

¶37

6. Per contra learned counsel for the

¶38

claimants has contended that at the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 20 years and he was working as a driver and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the parents for consideration of multiplier. In support of their case, he relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

¶39

¶40

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157 and Kishan Devi and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2019 ACJ 1366 .

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶42

It is not in dispute that Ningappa died in the accident occurred on 30.09.2012 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.27/F-295. The claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and he was also having driving licence. To establish the same, the claimants have produced Ex.P.12 salary certificate issued by one Sri Hanumanthappa B.Honnappanaver, but they have not examined the author of the said document. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has no option but to assess the income of the deceased notionally. While assessing notional income, the

¶43

¶44

Tribunal has considered Rs.7,000/- per month is higher side.

¶45

This Court in catena of decisions has been considering the chart prepared by the Lok Adalath for assessing the income of an unskilled labourer and as per the chart, the monthly income of the deceased for the year 2012 would be Rs.6,500/- and the same is taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the compensation towards loss of dependency. Further, at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 20 Years. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi and Kishan Devi supra, the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for multiplier. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 , if the deceased is aged 20-25 years at the time of accident, “18” multiplier should be taken. Accordingly, “18” multiplier is taken in this case.

¶46

¶47

Since the deceased was bachelor, 50% has to be deducted from his income towards his personal expenses. Hence, loss of dependency would to be recalculated and accordingly loss of dependency would be Rs.7,02,000/- (6500 x 18 x 12 / 2 =7,02,000/-).

¶48

This Court in the case of The Oriental

¶49

Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Akkayamma & Others reported in ILR 2009 KAR 24, has held that, even though the claimant has not filed an appeal, this Court has power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reassess the just and proper compensation and accordingly re-assess the compensation.

¶50