Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B a Sandya Rani

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2020MFA/5128/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.49,31,000/- to Rs.59,00,000/-. The court affirmed the negligence finding but re-assessed the deceased's income based on fresh evidence and awarded enhanced compensation under dependency heads.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.59,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B a… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND 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.5128 OF 2017 (MV-D) C/W MFA.NO.5365 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA.NO.5128 OF 2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION SARIGE BHAVAN, K.H.ROAD BENGALURU BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶12

....APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SMT. RENUKA .H.R, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . B A SANDYA RANI W/O LATE A. KESHAVAREDDY @ ALLA KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶16

¶17

2 . SAI SAMIKSHA D/O LATE A KESHAVAREDDY @ ALLA KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS MINOR STUDENT

¶18

3 . SANIDYA D/O LATE A KESHAVAREDDY @ ALLA KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS MINOR STUDENT

¶19

THE PETITIONERS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESETNED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT AS THEIR GUARDIAN

¶20

4 . NILAVATHI W/O A KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶21

5 . A KRISHNAREDDY S/O THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶22

ALL ARE NOW R/AT BELAGATTA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501

¶23

….RESPONDENTS

¶24

(SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1029/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.49,31,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A.

¶26

¶27

FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.

¶28

IN MFA.NO.5365 OF 2017

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

1 . SMT B A SANDYA RANI W/O LATE A KESHAVAREDDY @ ALLA KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶31

2 . SAI SAMIKSHA D/O LATE A KESHAVAREDDY @ ALLA KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

¶32

3 . SANIDYA LATE A KESHAVAREDDY @ ALLA KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS MINOR STUDENT

¶33

THE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REP BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER AS THEIR GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1

¶34

4 . SMT NILAVATHI W/O A KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶35

5 . A KRISHNAREDDY S/O THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶36

ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/O KRISHNAPURA RAYADURGA TALUK

¶37

¶38

NOW RESIDING AT BELAGATTA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TQ AND DIST-577 001

¶39

....APPELLANTS

¶40

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K S R T C, SARIGE BHAVAN K H RAOD, BENGALURU OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING REG NO.KA-40-F-928

¶43

2 . THE CHAIRMAN INTERNAL SECURITY FUND K H ROAD, SARIGE BHAVAN BENGALURU

¶44

3 . THE DEPOT DIRECTOR K S R T C, CHITRADURGA DEPOT CHITRADURGA-577 001

¶45

….RESPONDENTS

¶46

(SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶47

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1029/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENCHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

The Corporation as well as the claimants have challenged the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.1029/2015. The claimants have preferred appeal in MFA.No.5365/2017 challenging the quantum, whereas the Corporation has preferred appeal in MFA.No.5128/2017 challenging the negligence as well as quantum.

¶52

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

¶53

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶54

The claimants filed claim petition by contending that on 02.02.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., the husband of claimant No.1 namely Keshavareddy was proceeding on his bike towards Malleshwaram and when he reached near Railway Bridge at M.K.K. Road, at that juncture, the driver of the offending bus came

¶55

¶56

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the hind portion of the bike. In the said accident, Keshavareddy suffered grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to K.C.General Hospital, Malleshwaram, where he succumbed to injuries. The claimants specifically contended that deceased was hardly aged about 39 years and was holding Masters in Science and had also completed PGDBM course. The claimants have averred that deceased earlier was working at HETERO Drugs Ltd., Hyderabad and was getting a salary of Rs.60,000/-. The claimants have further contended that as on the date of the accident, he was working with G.R.College and was running Master Mind Centre at Bengaluru at the time of accident. The claimants contended that they were totally dependent on the income of the deceased and hence, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/-.

¶57

¶58

On receipt of notice, the respondent –

¶59

Corporation contested the proceedings. The Corporation specifically contended that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself. It was also contended that the offending bus was not at all involved in the accident. The Corporation further contended that the claimants have falsely implicated the bus. An objection was also raised in regard to jurisdiction on the ground that claimants are residents of Andhra Pradesh.

¶60

Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal formulated the following issues:

¶61

"1) Whether petitioners prove that A.Keshavareddy @ Alla Keshavareddy S/o A. Krishnareddy has died due to the accidental injuries in the R.T.A, occurred on 02-02-2015 at about 11-00 a.m, near Railway Bridge, MKK Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent

¶62

¶63

manner of driving of the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-40-F-928 by its driver?

¶64

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

¶65

3) What order or award?"

¶66

The claimants in support of their contention, examined widow of the deceased as PW.1 and two independent witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and produced documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-61. The Corporation has examined the driver of the offending bus as RW.1 and got marked the policy as Ex.R-1.

¶67

The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative by holding that Keshavareddy died on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. While determining compensation, the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the

¶68

¶69

claimants that deceased was getting salary of

¶70

Rs.37,180/- p.m. However, relying on the documents produced by the claimants, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.22,500/- and by adding 50% towards future prospects and by deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal has proceeded to award compensation of Rs.45,56,340/- under the head loss of dependency.

¶71

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/under conventional heads. The Tribunal, in all, has awarded a sum of Rs.49,31,340/-.

¶72

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶73

Corporation would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that Tribunal has not at all considered the contributory negligence on the part of rider of the bike. She would submit to this Court that the driver of the offending bus who is examined as RW.1 has specifically deposed that it is the rider of the

¶74

¶75

bike who was at fault. This clinching oral evidence is

¶76

discarded without assigning any reasons. On quantum, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that income of the deceased assessed at Rs.22,500/- by the Tribunal is without any basis and the income arrived at by the Tribunal is in absence of evidence to that effect. She would further argue and submit to this Court that Tribunal erred in adding 50% future prospects and the same is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Learned counsel for the Corporation would also submit that deduction of 1/4^th towards personal expenses is not proper.

¶77

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

¶78

the claimants would vehemently argue and contend

¶79

¶80

before this Court that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on negligence is based on evidence available on record. Except self sworn testimony of the driver, there is absolutely no rebuttal evidence to indicate that deceased had also contributed to the accident. Insofar as quantum is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit to this Court that the claimants have placed on record cogent and clinching evidence. He would take this Court to various documents namely Exs.P-2, P-7, P-18, P-21, P-39 and P-41. On perusal of these documents, it indicates that deceased has worked in various colleges. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit to this Court that the income assessed by the Tribunal is contrary to clinching evidence on record and hence, would submit to this Court that there is scope for enhancement.

¶81

¶82

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶83

Corporation and learned counsel appearing for the claimants. We have examined the pleadings of the parties and have re-assessed the entire evidence on record.

¶84

Insofar as negligence is concerned, we

¶85

have examined the spot sketch. On perusal of spot sketch as per Ex.P-4, it is clearly evident that driver of the offending bus who was moving in the same direction has gradually drifted towards the extreme left side of the road, thereby has virtually blocked the rider of the bike and in the process, the accident has occurred. There is absolutely no explanation and rebuttal evidence to disbelieve Ex.P-4 which would clinch the issue. In absence of rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal relying on Ex.P-4 as well as the charge sheet which is filed against the driver of the offending bus as

¶86

per Ex.P-8 has rightly come to conclusion that the

¶87

¶88

accident has occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. On re-appreciation of the relevant material on record, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal insofar as negligence is concerned is in accordance with law and is based on the documentary evidence available on record. We do not find any infirmities in the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal on negligence.

¶89

The Tribunal has assessed the income of

¶90

the deceased at Rs.22,500/-. On perusal of Ex.P-57,

¶91

it is forthcoming that deceased was working as Assistant Professor with FITTJEE Limited and was drawing a gross salary of Rs.37,180/. The claimants have placed on record clinching evidence to demonstrate that deceased has worked with several educational establishments. We have also perused the qualification of the deceased. On perusal of these

¶92

¶93

documents, it is forthcoming that deceased has rich experience in teaching and had a bright future since deceased was hardly aged 39 years. Evidence of PW.3, who is an employee of FIITJEE Company also established that deceased had worked in the above said company from 2009 to 2014. If all this clinching evidence is taken note of, then we are of the view that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Though he was getting salary of Rs.37,180/while he was employed at FIITJEE Company, however, accident has occurred immediately after he left FIITJEE. However, having regard to the teaching experience he had and the fact that he was hardly aged 39 years, we would assess the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- and by adding 40% future prospects, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.42,000/-. After deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses, the income of the deceased is

¶94

¶95

assessed at Rs.31,500/- and by applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation re-determined by this Court under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.56,70,000/- (31,500x12x15). Under conventional heads, claimant No.1 being the wife of deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium, claimant Nos.2 and 3 being daughters are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and claimant Nos.4 and 5 being parents of deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/each towards filial consortium and Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Hence, the total compensation redetermined by this Court comes to Rs.59,00,000/- as against Rs.49,31,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶96

9. Hence, the following:

¶97

¶98

ORDER

¶99

i) The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA.No.5365/2017 is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA.No.5128/2017 stands disposed of. ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.59,00,000/- as against Rs.49,31,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶100

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

¶101

¶102

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

¶103

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶104

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

¶105

Sd/JUDGE

¶106

Sd/JUDGE

¶107

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B a Sandya Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B a Sandya Rani

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

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs D K Srikantaiah

Smt Subhashini Rao Vs the Regional Manager

The Manager Vs Smt Nirmala G

Smt. Valsala Kurian Vs Sri Chandrashekar Naidu P.

Smt T P Manjula Vs Sri Venkatesh

Smt B a Sandya Rani Vs the Managing Director