Partly allowed

Smt. K L Susheela v. Ksrtc

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2020MFA/10993/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by three minor claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in a motor accident claim petition. The court held the insurer liable based on a prior judgment and enhanced compensation by including loss of future prospects, modifying the award from Rs. 8,02,520 to Rs. 12,26,280, payable by the insurer with special deposit directions for minors.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 8,02,520 to Rs. 12,26,280. Insurer liable. 50% deposited for minors.

Smt. K L Susheela Vs Ksrtc — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10993 OF 2011 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. K.L. SUSHEELA W/O LATE K.S. LAXMANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶9

MS. K.L. LAVANYA D/O LATE K.S. LAXMANA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,

¶10

MR. K.L. GURUSHANKAR, S/O LATE K.S. LAXMANA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶11

PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN i.e., PETITIONER NO.1, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.149, 8^TH BATALLION, KSRP, KAPILA BLOCK, MACHENAHALLI SHIMOGA TALUK.

¶12

... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.G.CHIDANANDA URS, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

KSRTC MYSORE DEPOT, MYSORE-570 005, BY ITS MANAGER-570 005.

¶17

C.Y. MURULI S/O LATE N. VENKATAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA-09, D-7227 R/O NO.307, 19^TH MAIN, II STAGE, VIJAYA NAGARA, MYSORE-570005.

¶18

R.KRISHNA S/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, DRIVER IN KSRTC, DEPOT NO.1, MYSORE, R/O NO.324, ASHRAMA ROAD (HUNASURU ROAD) INKAL, MYSORE TALUK-570 005.

¶19

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 73, I^ST FLOOR, MAHAVEER COMPLEX, NAZARABAD ROAD, MYSORE-570005 REPTD. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. S.N. ASWATHANARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.09.2015; SRI. D.S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶22

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.09.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.132/2010 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-II, I FAST TRACK COURT, SHIMOGA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of the District Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), I Fast Track Court, Shimoga, in MVC No.132/2010.

¶27

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

¶28

they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶29

The records of the Tribunal reveal that on 10.04.2004, Sri K.S. Laxmana, who was working as a Constable in Karnataka State Reserve Police, was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14-R-7021 with his

¶30

¶31

colleague, Sri Siddaraju, riding pillion from Malavagoppa to Shimoga City. At about 11:45 a.m., a bus bearing registration No.KA-09-D-7227 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending bus’), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the said K.S.Laxmana sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased K.S.Laxmana, who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. They claimed that as a result of the death of the said K.S. Laxmana, they were deprived of the emotional and financial support and claimant No.1 lost consortium of K.S. Laxmana. They further stated that the said Mr. K.S. Laxmana was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,456/-.

¶32

Respondent No.1, who was the owner of the offending bus, contested the claim petition by denying the averments made therein. Respondent No.1 stated that a

¶33

¶34

Firm by name Lakshmi Carriers (R), Mysore, was the owner of the offending bus and it was a necessary party to the claim petition. It referred to an agreement dated 25.11.2002 entered into between respondent No.1 and the said Firm by which it had taken the offending bus on lease. It thus claimed that it was neither the owner nor insurer of the offending bus. However, it accused the deceased K.S.Laxman of negligence in driving the motorcycle.

¶35

Respondent No.4, who is the insurer of the offending bus, also contested the claim petition by denying the averments of the claim petition. It contended that respondent No.2 had leased the offending bus from respondent No.1 as on the date of the accident and as the offending bus was in exclusive control of respondent No.1, it was the owner of the offending Bus under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It contended that it was not a party to the contract between respondent No.1 - KSRTC and the owner of the offending bus and therefore, it was not liable to pay the compensation to claimants.

¶36

¶37

Based on the aforesaid rival contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P8 and the insurer examined its officer as RW.1 and another witness as RW.2 and they marked Exs.R1 to R4.

¶38

The Tribunal found support from Exs.P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6 which indicated that the complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending bus and held that the driver of the offending bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and causing the accident.

¶39

In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal on the basis of Ex.P8 – salary certificate noticed that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.6,456/- and after deducting the professional tax, his monthly income was Rs.6,396/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd of the said amount towards living expenses of the deceased and applied the appropriate multiplier of 15 and awarded a sum of Rs.7,67,520/towards loss of

¶40

¶41

dependency and additional sum of Rs.35,000/- under the

¶42

conventional heads as follows:

¶43

	Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount (In Rupees)
a.	Loss of annual dependency	7,67,520/-
b.	For loss of consortium	10,000/-
c.	Loss of estate	10,000/-
d.	Loss of love and affection to petitioners 2 and 3 at Rs.5,000/- each	10,000/-
e.	Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body	5,000/-
	TOTAL	8,02,520/-

¶44

The Tribunal awarded the aforesaid compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. In so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that it was respondent No.1, who was liable to pay the compensation and dismissed the case against the insurer.

¶45

Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of

¶46

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal.

¶47

¶48

Learned counsel for appellants contends that

¶49

the Tribunal ought to have awarded loss of future prospects as the deceased was a Government servant and there was proof of the income in the form of Ex.P8, which was the salary certificate. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the deduction of 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3^rd . Learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court the Judgment dated 09.04.2012 passed in the appeals arising out of claim petitions filed by injured travelling in the offending bus i.e., in MFA No.8473/2010 and companion matters and MFA No.10709/2010 filed by respondent No.1 herein challenging the Judgment and Award impugned in the present appeal, wherein this Court had directed that the insurer of the offending bus should pay the compensation.

¶50

The learned counsel for the insurer of the offending bus (respondent No.4 herein) did not dispute the fact that in view of the Judgment dated 09.04.2012 passed

¶51

¶52

by this Court in MFA No.10709/2010, the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was fastened on it. This Judgment passed in MFA No.10709/2010 has attained finality and therefore, it is imperative that in this appeal too, the liability to pay the compensation that may be determined by this Court, is fixed on the insurer – respondent No.4 in this appeal.

¶53

In so far as the claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned, as rightly contended by the claimants, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of future prospects. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was 38 years and had a clear 22 years of remaining service during which time, the income of the deceased would have increased, addition of future prospects to the income of the deceased should have been made by the Tribunal while computing the compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , claimants are entitled to loss of

¶54

¶55

future prospects of the income of the deceased. If the loss of future prospects is granted to the deceased, then the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be reconsidered and recalculated as follows:

¶56

Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount (In Rupees)
Loss of dependency (Rs.6396 + future prospects at 50% = Rs.9594/-; after deducting 1/3^rd, Rs.9594 – Rs.3198 = Rs.6396/-) (Rs.6396 x 12 x 15)	11,51,280/-
Loss of consortium for claimant No.1	25,000/-
Loss of estate	25,000/-
Loss of love and affection for claimant	20,000/-
Nos.2 and 3 at Rs.10,000/-each
Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body	5,000/-
TOTAL	12,26,280/-

¶57

In view of the above, this Appeal is allowed in part . The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.8,02,520/to Rs.12,26,280/-, which is payable by the insurer – respondent No.4 herein along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶58

¶59

Respondent No.4 – insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as stated above within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

¶60

Upon deposit, 50% of the compensation shall be kept in a fixed deposit in the names of claimant Nos.2 and 3 in a nationalized Bank for a period of three years and the remaining 50% shall be released to claimant No.1.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

sma

Smt. K L Susheela v. Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K L Susheela v. Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S K Ashok Vs Smt Anjana

Sri Venkatesh Vs Sri C Sathish Kumar

Smt Radhamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B K Raja Vs the Manager

Sri Shiva S/O Chodaiah Vs the Manager

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Manjunatha