Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Geetha .D.M

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2020MFA/5732/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the MPSRTC's appeal partly, modifying the quantum of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court found the original multiplier of 18 was incorrect for the deceased's age, reducing the awarded sum to Rs.42,33,172/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs.42,33,172/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^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.5732 OF 2016(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHIKMAGALURU DIVISION CHIKAMAGALURU BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶11

....APPELLANT

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . GEETHA .D.M W/O LATE A.E. PALAKSHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶15

2 . A P CHETHAN (MINOR) S/O LATE A.E. PALAKSHA AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶16

¶17

RESPONDENT NO.1

¶18

3 . CHANDRAMMA W/O EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶19

4 . EREGOWDA S/O NIRAVANEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ANDALE VILLAGE, MADIHALLI HOBLI BELURU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 121

¶21

….RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GIRISH .B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 R2 IS MINOR REP BY R1, NOTICE SERVED TO R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1237/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, BELUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.43,67,104/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The captioned appeal is filed by the KSRTC (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") challenging the judgment and award dated 28.4.2016 passed in MVC.No.1237/2015 by the Civil Judge and MACT, Beluru, on the ground of negligence as well as quantum.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶29

The claimants- respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition for having lost one Palaksha in a road traffic accident dated 24.05.2015. The respondentsclaimants specifically contended that on 24.5.2015, the husband of the first respondent was proceeding to his native place on the motor cycle bearing No.KA-46E-7290 and when he reached Yegachi bridge on Belur Main Road, the driver of the offending bus bearing No.KA-09-F-4742 came in a high speed in a rash and

¶30

¶31

negligent manner and dashed against the bike. As a result of which, the husband of first respondent sustained injuries to head and other parts of the body. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Belur, and after first-aid he was shifted to Government Hospital, Hassan, where he was declared dead. The respondents have stated in the claim petition that the deceased was working as Fireman in Belur Fire station and drawing a salary of Rs.17,883/per month and also had an agricultural income of Rs.3 lakhs. They claimed that they were totally dependant on the deceased and as such claimed compensation of Rs.70 lakhs.

¶32

The appellant-Corporation on receipt of notice filed objections and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. At Para 7 of the objections, the Corporation has specifically contended that the accident has occurred solely on

¶33

¶34

account of the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. The appellant-Corporation has also disputed the salary and agricultural income as stated in the claim petition. On these set of grounds, the appellant-Corporation sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶35

Based on pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶36

¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.05.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 1200 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥Á¯ÁPÀë vÀ£Àß ¨Á§ÄÛ PÉJ-46-E-7290gÀ ¥À®ìgï ¨ÉÊPï£À°è vÀªÀÄä HgÁzÀ ªÀiÁ¢ÃºÀ½î ºÉÆÃ§½, DAzÀ¯É UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¨ÉÃ®ÆgÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ AiÀÄUÀa ¸ÉÃvÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÁUÀ, JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqÉ¬ÄAzÀ §AzÀ PÉJ-09J¥sï- 4742gÀ §¸ï ZÁ®PÀ£À ¤®ðPÀëvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉAiÀÄ ZÁ®£É¬ÄAzÀ dgÀÄVzÀ ªÁºÀ£À C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ£ÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁªÀÅ CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀ®A©üvÀgÉAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¸ÁÜ¦¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

¶37

AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉÃ±À CxÀªÁ LwÃ¥ÀÄð?

¶38

The respondents-claimants in support of their contention examined respondent No.1 as P.W.1 and in support of ocular evidence produced documentary evidence as per Exs.P1 to P11. The appellantCorporation examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and produced documentary evidence vide Exs.R1 to R8.

¶39

The Tribunal having assessed the oral and documentary evidence has answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative.

¶40

Insofar as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal placing reliance on Ex.P10-salary slip has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.17,683/- per month. Adding 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal

¶41

¶42

expenses and adopting the multiplier of 18 has awarded Rs.42,97,104/- towards loss of dependency. Under conventional heads a sum of Rs.85,000/- is awarded and in all the Tribunal has awarded Rs.43,82,104/-.

¶43

The counsel appearing for the Corporation would vehemently argue and contend that the clinching rebuttal evidence adduced by the Corporation would clearly establish that the deceased was responsible for the accident. The evidence on record would clearly establish that the driver of the offending bus had virtually stopped the vehicle and it is the deceased who lost control and dashed against the bus. He would further submit that the fact that

¶44

the point of impact is on the middle of the road, it would clearly establish that the deceased was negligent and contributed to the accident. In this background, he would submit that the Tribunal was

¶45

¶46

not justified in fixing the negligence entirely on the driver of the offending bus.

¶47

Insofar as quantum is concerned, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that Tribunal was not justified in deducting 1/4th and adding 50% towards future prospects. He would also submit that the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect. On these set of grounds, he would urge this Court to fix negligence on the deceased and also reduce the compensation.

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would submit to this Court that infact the income assessed by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side and as such, would not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶49

Heard the counsel for the Corporation and counsel appearing for the claimants. Perused the

¶50

¶51

pleadings of the rival parties and on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, we proceed to determine the negligence and quantum as under:

¶52

6. Regarding negligence:

¶53

The claimants have specifically contended that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. They have relied on the FIR and complaint as per Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. The respondents-claimants have also relied on the charge sheet as per Ex.P5. To rebut the said fact, the appellant-Corporation has relied on the evidence of the driver of the offending bus examined as R.W.1. We have examined the ocular evidence of R.W.1. The self sworn testimony of the driver who is examined as R.W.1 cannot outweigh the police records produced by the claimants. The Tribunal having taken holistic view has come to the conclusion

¶54

¶55

that the death of first claimant's husband is on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 Accordingly, the grounds urged in the appeal memo by the Corporation are liable to be dismissed.

¶56

7. Regarding quantum:

¶57

We find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation. The deceased was aged 30 years. Hence, the Tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier of 18. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency needs to be re-examined. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.17,683/- and has added 50% towards future prospects. The same does not need any interference by this Court. By adding 50% towards future prospects, the income of the

¶58

¶59

deceased is assessed at Rs.26,524/-. By deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency is determined at

¶60

Rs.26,524x12x17x3/4=Rs.40,58,172/-. Under conventional heads Rs.1,90,000/- is awarded i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium to claimant No.1, Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium to claimant No.2, Rs,40,000/- each to claimants 3 and 4 towards filial consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the redetermined compensation works out to Rs.42,48,172/-. It is not in dispute that the Corporation has paid Rs.15,000/- towards interim compensation . Deducting the said amount, the redetermined compensation works out to Rs.42,33,172/- to which the claimants are entitled

¶61

¶62

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

¶63

Hence, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.42,33,172/- after deducting Rs.15,000/as against Rs.43,82,104/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶66

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

¶67

iv) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

*alb/-.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Geetha .D.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Geetha .D.M

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

Sri P Shivanna S/O Late Puttamadaiah Vs Sri Jaswanth Kumar Kothari

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Lalitha Bai

The Managing Director Vs M.S. Vidyashree

Sri Venkatesh R Vs Sri Hemantha Kumar

Subbannachari Vs Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Venkatesh R