Partly allowed

Smt. Uma L v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2020MFA/3126/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced motor accident compensation to Rs. 35,86,200 by correcting the Tribunal's use of net salary instead of gross salary. The Court dismissed the separate appeal filed by the deceased's mother as it became subsumed in the connected appeal and issued execution directions against the RTC.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 35,86,200 at 6% interest; mother's appeal dismissed as subsumed; Insurance Company ordered to deposit amount within 90 days.

Smt. Uma L Vs the Divisional Controller — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^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.3482 OF 2017(MV-D) C/W MFA.NO.3126 OF 2017(MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA.NO.3482 OF 2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT DEVAMMA W/O LATE K.S.DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF KABBINAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201

¶12

....APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. KUMARA .K.G, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN - 573 201

¶16

2 . SMT. UMA L

¶17

¶18

W/O LATE PRAKASHA D AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF KABBINAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201

¶19

3 . MASTER PRAJWAL P RAJ S/O LATE PRAKASHA D AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. UMA L RESIDENT OF KABBINAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201 4 . MASTER UJWAL P RAJ S/O LATE PRAKASHA D AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. UMA L RESIDENT OF KABBINAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201

¶20

….RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M.K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. CHETHAN .B, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1428/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

¶24

IN MFA.NO.3126 OF 2017

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

1 . SMT. UMA L W/O LATE PRAKASHA D AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶27

2 . MASTER PRAJWAL P RAJ S/O LATE PRAKASHA D AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS

¶28

3 . SMT. DEVAMMA W/O LATE K.S.DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4 . MASTER UJWAL P RAJ S/O LATE PRAKASHA D AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS PETITIONER NO.2 AND 4 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER- 1ST PETITIONER ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KABBINAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201. ....APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN .B, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶29

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN - 573 201 ….RESPONDENT (SRI. M.K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶30

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

These two appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 27.09.2016 passed in MVC.No.1428/2015 by the III Additional District Judge and MACT at Hassan. MFA.No.3126/2017 is filed by the wife, children and mother of deceased Prakash.D. and MFA.No.3482/2017 is filed by the mother of the deceased Prakash.D. namely Devamma and who is also appellant No.3 in connected MFA.3126/2017. Both the appeals are filed seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶35

The appellants filed a claim petition by contending that on 17.9.2015 at about 1.30 p.m., the husband of first appellant namely Prakash was sitting on

¶36

¶37

parked bike bearing No.KA-13-K-4001 by the side of Hassan-Arakalagudu Road. At that juncture, the driver of the offending KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-13-F-1504 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike. On account of impact, the said Prakash fell down and the rear wheel rolled over the said prakash, and he died on the spot. The appellants-claimants specifically contended that the deceased was working as Village accountant and was drawing salary of 30,000/- per month. They have contended that the deceased was also getting income of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from the agricultural property. It was also contended he was hale and healthy and hardly aged about 41 years. They were totally dependant on the income of the deceased. On these set of pleadings, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-.

¶38

On receipt of summons, the respondent-Corporation contested the proceedings. The respondent stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. The

¶39

¶40

Corporation stoutly denied the allegation in regard to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. The Corporation specifically contended that it is the deceased who was responsible for the accident. The Corporation has specifically contended that when the deceased while trying to collect his helmet which was lying on the ground lost balance and came under the rear wheel of the bus. On these set of defence, the respondentCorporation contested the proceedings. The respondent's denied age, income and amount spent towards cremation.

¶41

Based on rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶42

"1. Whether the petitioners prove that, Prakasha.D, S/o Late K.S. Devaraju, died in a road traffic accident dated 17.09.2015 at about 1.30 p.m. Hanumantha pura, opp. Shankaranna's Provision Store, Hassan Taluk, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-13 F-1504?

¶43

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?

¶44

3. What order or award?"

¶45

¶46

The appellants-claimants in support of their contention examined widow of deceased as P.W.1 and independent witness as P.W.2 and produced documents as per Exs.P1 to P12. The respondent-Corporation examined R.W.1- who is the driver of the offending bus and produced two documents vide Exs.R1 and R2.

¶47

The Tribunal having assessed oral and documentary evidence has answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative holding that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus and in the accident, the husband of the first claimant namely Prakash died on the spot.

¶48

The Tribunal while determining compensation by taking note of the pay slip as per Ex.P10 has proceeded to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.17,618/-. By adding 30% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 14 has awarded a sum of Rs.22,19,868/-. The Tribunal in all has awarded Rs.29,47,828/- with

¶49

¶50

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently argue and contend that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the net salary of the deceased and hence, would submit that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is contrary to the clinching evidence on record. On perusal of Ex.P10, it is forthcoming that the gross salary of the deceased is shown as Rs.21,026/-. On perusal of Ex.P10-pay slip, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased by taking the net salary instead of gross salary. Hence, we are of the view that the compensation determined under the head of loss of dependency needs reconsideration. Taking the gross income of the deceased i.e. Rs.21,026/- and by deducting Rs.200/- towards profession tax, the income is taken as 20,826/-. 30% of the income of the deceased is added towards future prospects which works out to

¶52

¶53

Rs.20,826x30/100=Rs.27,073/-. By deducting 1/4^th and applying the multiplier of 14, the amount payable under the head of loss of dependency works out to Rs.27073x12x14x3/4=Rs.34,11,198/-. Under conventional heads, the appellants-claimants are entitled for Rs.1,90,000/- i.e. Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, the total compensation redetermined by this Court comes to Rs.36,01,200/-. Deducting Rs.15,000/- which is paid by the Corporation by way of interim compensation, the appellants-claimants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.35,86,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶54

The appellant in MFA.No.3482/2017 namely Smt. Devamma, who is the mother of the deceased is also one of the appellants in the connected MFA.No.3126/2017 wherein she has joined the other appellants namely her

¶55

¶56

daughter-in-law and grand children. In view of the determination of the compensation in MFA.No.3126/2017, the appeal filed by Smt. Devamma in MFA.No.3482/2017 does not survive for consideration.

¶57

Hence, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The appeal in MFA.No.3126/2017 filed by the claimants is allowed in part and the appeal in MFA.No.3482/2017 filed by the mother of the deceased is dismissed.

¶60

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.35,86,200/- after deducting the interim compensation of Rs.15,000/- paid by the Corporation as against Rs.29,47,828/awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced

¶61

¶62

compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶63

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact. Out of the compensation re-determined by this Court, the appellants 1 and 3 in MFA.No.3126/2017 who are the wife and mother of deceased are entitled for 20% each whereas appellants 2 and 4 are entitled for 30% each along with accrued interest.

¶64

iv) The Insurance Company shall 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.

¶65

v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶66

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶67

¶68

vii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit with original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

*alb/-.

Smt. Uma L v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Uma L v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K B Shetty Since Deceased by Lrs Vs Shobha Surender

Shobha Surender Vs K B Shetty Since Deceased by Lrs

Mr Krishnappa Vs Sri M Krishnamurthy

The Branch Manager Vs M Vasanthi

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kubendra

Sri Kubendra Vs Sri Cheluvaraju