Partly allowed

Sri Narahari Y v. Vs the Managing Director

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2020MFA/2688/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against MACT compensation order was filed by major sons seeking enhancement of award. Court held major heirs cannot claim loss of dependency but are entitled to loss of estate. Compensation enhanced based on notional income to Rs.2.38 lakh with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,38,944/- with 6% interest from date of claim petition, including funeral expenses; liability and apportionment left intact.

Sri Narahari Y v Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

MFA.NO.2688 OF 2016(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . SRI. NARAHARI .Y .V S/O LATE Y.N.VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶11

2 . SRI. ADITHYA Y.V. S/O LATE Y.N.VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT C/O B.VEERAPPA, NO.D19/2 3^RD CROSS, KARNASHREE LAYOUT MEDAHALLI, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 036

¶13

....APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ .G, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, K.H.ROAD

¶17

¶18

SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 (REGISTERED OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KA-01 F-9340)

¶19

….RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.6127/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 9^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 34^TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The captioned appeal is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 6.1.2016 passed in MVC.No.6078/2013 c/w MVC.Nos.6127/2013 and 3459/2014 seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellants are the claimants in MVC.No.6127/2013.

¶24

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶25

¶26

The appellants filed a claim petition in

¶27

MVC.No.6127/2013 for having lost their father

¶28

Sri.Venkata Rao. The appellants contended that on 15.9.2013 their parents were proceeding in a Mistubishi Lancer Car bearing Regn.No.KA-22-M-6353 from Bengaluru towards Mysuru to distribute the wedding invitation card of the first appellant. The said car was driven by the claimant in MVC.No.6078/2013. When they were on their way to Mysuru, near Toobinakere Industrial Area, ahead of Prerana Motors, at about 11.15 a.m. the driver of the offending KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01-F-9340 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction i.e. from Mysuru towards Bengaluru, and lost control and virtually ran over the divider of the road and dashed against the Lancer car in which the appellant and other two inmates were traveling and also dashed against another motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-11-

¶29

¶30

W-3311. As a result of the accident, the claimant in MVC.No.6078/2013 sustained grievous injuries and their father namely Venkata Rao died on the spot and their mother Smt.Prameela(deceased in MVC.No.3459/2014)died in the hospital.

¶31

The claimants have specifically contended that their father was the sole bread earning member in their family and as such they have lost their lone earning member. They have lost their parental love at their tender age. The marriage of the first claimant was cancelled and they are put to mental agony. Hence claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶32

The respondent-Corporation on receipt of notice filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. The second respondent-Corporation specifically contended that near the accident spot there is a down gradient road and one car suddenly entered the road from Industrial

¶33

¶34

area and the driver of the offending bus who was not in a position to anticipate the same abruptly veered

¶35

the bus to the left side of the road and at that juncture he found that a bike was proceeding on the left side of the road and while attempting to avoid collusion with the bike, lost control. It is also stated in the written statement that the engine of the bus abruptly got switched off and steering got locked on account of which the bus ran over the divider and they, the driver applied the brake and stationed the bus. It is further stated in the written statement that the appellant who was driving the car was also rash and negligent came from Bengaluru side and had dashed against the bus. The second respondentCorporation contended that the accident had occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lancer car.

¶36

¶37

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

¶38

following issues:

¶39

"1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, Sri. Y.N. Venkata Rao succumbed in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 15.09.2013, at about 11.45 a.m., Bangalore Mysore Road, Near Tubenakere Industrial Area, which was due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC Bus bearing regn.No.KA-01-F-9304?

¶40

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

¶41

3. What Order?"

¶42

The appellants in support of their contention examined the first claimant as P.W.2 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and in support of ocular evidence, adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P13 to P17, Ex.P18 to 24 and P.31. Ex.P32-charge sheet was got marked on behalf of all the claimants with consent. The respondent-Corporation got examined its driver as R.W.1 by filing an affidavit as

¶43

¶44

his examination-in-chief and did not choose to produce any documents.

¶45

The Tribunal having assessed the oral and documentary evidence, has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and has accordingly held that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus.

¶46

In so far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal

¶47

has denied compensation under the head of loss of dependency on the premise that appellants’ father was 65 years old and appellants being major sons cannot claim to be dependants. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/- under conventional heads. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel appellants-

¶49

claimants and the respondent-Corporation. Perused

¶50

¶51

the pleadings of the parties. We have meticulously examined the entire records of the Tribunal.

¶52

The counsel for the appellants would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that though appellants are major sons, the Tribunal has virtually lost sight of the material fact that the appellants have lost their parents. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that appellant No.1 was about to get married and they were dependant on the income of their deceased father. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the finding of the Tribunal that the appellants are majors and as such they cannot claim compensation is palpably erroneous and as such the same warrants interference.

¶53

Learned counsel for the Corporation

¶54

submits that the appellants are majors and as such they are not entitle for loss of dependency. The

¶55

¶56

judgment and award is in accordance with law and would not warrant any interference.

¶57

We have re-assessed the entire evidence on record. The Tribunal having arrived at a conclusion that the appellants are not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency on the ground that they are majors and cannot claim dependency ought to have proceeded to determine the compensation under the head of loss of estate in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A. Manavalagan .vs. A. Krishnamurthy and others [2004 SCC OnLine Kar

¶58

222] wherein it has been held the legal heirs who are majors cannot claim to be dependants of the deceased and cannot claim compensation under the head of loss

¶59

of dependency as there would be no financial dependency and that though law contemplates two categories of damages on the death of a person, the

¶60

¶61

first being the pecuniary loss sustained by the dependant members of his family as a result of such death and the second one being the loss caused to the estate, the claimants who are majors are only entitled under the head of loss caused to the estate and not under the loss of dependency. Since the said exercise is not done by the Tribunal, by following the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision, we proceed to determine the compensation under the head of loss of estate and not under the loss of dependency.. Since the said exercise is not done by the Tribunal, we deem it fit to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency. In the absence of income proof, the income of deceased is assessed notionally at Rs.8,000/-. Taking 1/3^rd of Rs.8,000/- which works out to Rs.2,666/- and applying the multiplier of 7, the loss of estate works out to Rs.2,666x12x7=

¶62

¶63

Rs.2,23,944/-. Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,38,944/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

¶64

Hence, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶67

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,38,944/- as against Rs.80,000/-

¶68

which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶69

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶70

¶71

iv) The respondent-Corporation shall

¶72

deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶73

v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal. vi) Draw modified award accordingly. vii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit with original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

*alb/-.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Narahari Y v. Vs the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narahari Y v. Vs the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Bharathi N Vs D Naveen

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt. M. T. Manjamma @ M.T. Manjakka

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri. D. Chandrashekara Reddy

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Rekha R

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Akshath P Acharya

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Shri S K Anamul