Partly allowed

Sri. Siddaramachar v. Managing Director

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2020MFA/6427/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard appeals from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. While the insured insurer's appeal was partly allowed to reduce compensation based on the deceased's employment status, the financial appeal by the claimants seeking enhanced compensation was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation reduced to Rs. 18,77,864/-; claimants' appeal for enhancement dismissed; Corporation directed to deposit amount within 90 days.

Sri. Siddaramachar Vs Managing Director — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^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.6427 OF 2018(MV-D) C/W

¶9

MFA.NO.4764 OF 2017(MV-D)

¶10

IN MFA.NO.6427 OF 2018

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

1 . SRI. SIDDARAMACHAR S/O LATE SIDDARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶13

2 . SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O SIDDARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶14

3 . KUM. GAYATHRI D/O SIDDARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶15

4 . MAS. TYAGARAJU S/O SIDDARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶16

R/AT DOOR VILLAGE

¶17

¶18

JAYAPURA HOBLI, KADAKOLA POST MYSURU TQ & DIST.

¶19

....APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. S. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

1 . MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD TRANSPORT BUILDING BENGALURU-27

¶23

2 . SRI LAKSHME GOWDA S/O CHENNAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS CHIKKARADEV VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI KUNDUR POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-574 610

¶24

3 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COM., LTD., NO.1825,/14C, 1ST FLOOR SREE COMPLEX OLD B M ROAD HUNSUR MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105

¶25

….RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.334/2012 ON THE FILE OF

¶28

¶29

THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MACT, RAMANGARAM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

IN MFA.NO.4764 OF 2017

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C., DEPOT BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFICE K.H.ROAD BANGALORE-560 027

¶33

NOW THROUGH ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE

¶34

....APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

1 . SRI. SIDDARAMACHAR S/O SIDDARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶38

2 . SMT. GORAMMA W/O SIDDARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶39

3 . GAYATHRI D/O SIDDARAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶40

4 . TYAGARAJU

¶41

¶42

D/O SIDDARAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶43

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT DOORA VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI, KADAKOLA POST MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 311

¶44

5 . LAKSHME GOWDA S/O CHENNAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CHIKKARADEV VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI KUNDUR POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-576 117

¶45

6 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.1825/14C, 1ST FLOOR SREE COMPLEX, OLD BM ROAD HUNASURU MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105 ….RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. S.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R2, SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6, NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶47

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.334/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MACT, RAMANGARAM, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,57,704/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

These two appeals are directed against the

¶52

impugned common judgment and award dated 9.11.2016 passed in MVC.Nos.333/2012 c/w

¶53

334/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Member, MACT, Ramanagaram. MFA No.4764/2017 is filed by the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation(hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") against the judgment and award in MVC.No.334/2012 challenging the quantum whereas the claimants have preferred appeal MFA.No.6427/2018 seeking enhancement of

¶54

compensation.

¶55

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties

¶56

are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

¶57

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶58

¶59

The claimants filed claim petition contending that

¶60

on 3.12.2012 at about 5.20 a.m. their son Chetan Kumar was proceeding on a motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA.42.E.5235 along with one C.L. Dharshan on B.M. Road, near Byramangala Cross, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. At that juncture, the driver of the offending KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-09-F-4015 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. On account of the said impact, the son of claimants No.1 and 2 namely Chetan Kumar as well as Dharshan fell down and sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The claimants have specifically contended that their son Chetan Kumar prior to the accident was hale and healthy and was working in T.G. Kirloskar company and getting salary of Rs.25,000/-. The claimants have contended that they were totally dependant on the income of the deceased

¶61

¶62

and hence, filed a claim petition claiming

¶63

compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs.

¶64

On receipt of notice, respondents 1 and 3 appeared and filed separate written statement. Respondent No.2-owner of the motor bike did not appear and contest the case and was placed exparte. The first respondent-Corporation filed written statement and has stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the deceased himself and seriously disputed the rash and negligent act of the driver of the KSRTC bus. On these set of defences, the first respondent-Corporation sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶65

The third respondent-Insurance Company on receipt of notice filed written statement and specifically contended that it is neither a necessary

¶66

¶67

nor proper party. The accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending KSRTC bus and as such the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the bike owned by the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶68

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following Issues:

¶69

"1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 03.12.2012 at about 5.20 a.m., deceased Chethan Kumar vide proceeding in his motor cycle towards Dyramangala cross, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk was hit by a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09-F-4015 from behind as it came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him as a result of which deceased died on the spot?

¶70

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

¶71

3. What order or award?"

¶72

¶73

From the records, it is borne out that the claim

¶74

petitions filed by the present claimants in MVC.333/2012 and also the claimants in MVC.334/2012 were disposed of separately on 7.7.2014 by the Tribunal. Questioning the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimants had preferred separate appeals in MFA.3263/2015 and MFA.No.784/2015 and this Court by common judgment and award dated 17.3.2016 set aside the judgment and award dated 7.7.2014 passed by the Tribunal and remitted back the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and had further directed Tribunal to club both the claim petitions. Prior to remand, the claimants in MVC.No.333/2012 had examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and have got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 12. After remand, the claimants in MVC.No.333/2012

¶75

¶76

got examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P13 to 23. The first respondent-Corporation to corroborate its contention examined the driver of the offending bus as R.W.1 and the conductor as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R5. It is also borne out from the records that further evidence is recorded in MVC.333/2012. In support of their contentions, the claimants submitted written arguments.

¶77

The Tribunal having examined the material on record and written arguments has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative by holding that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus.

¶78

The Tribunal while determining the compensation has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.11,922/- and by adding 50% towards future prospects, the income is assessed at Rs.17,988/-. The Tribunal by deducting 50% towards

¶79

¶80

personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier of 18 has proceeded to award Rs.19,42,704/- towards loss of dependency. Under conventional heads, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,57,704/-. Being aggrieved by the same, both the Corporation and the claimants have preferred these appeals.

¶81

The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation in MFA.4764/2017 would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects since the deceased was working as an Operator in a private sector.

¶82

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants would support the quantum determined by the Tribunal and submits that the claimants in support

¶83

¶84

of their contention have produced Apprenticeship Certificate and also Salary certificate, which clearly proves that the deceased was permanently employed. He would further submit that 50% of the income of the deceased added towards future prospects by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and would not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶85

We have heard the learned counsel for the claimants as well as the Corporation and we have perused the pleadings and re-assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

¶86

It is borne out from the records, that the deceased was appointed as a Trainee in T.G. Kirloskar Toyota Company. So it is clearly evident that the deceased was employed in a private sector. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that 50% towards future prospects cannot be added in view of

¶87

¶88

the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in

¶89

National Insurance Company .vs. Pranay Sethi

¶90

and others [2017 ACJ 2700]. Since the job of the deceased was not regular, we deem it fit to add 40% by following the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. The income assessed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. By assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.11,992/and deducting Rs.200/- towards professional tax, which works out to Rs.11,792/- and by adding 40% future prospects the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.11,792x40/100=Rs.16,508/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Having regard to the age of the deceased i.e. 22 years, the multiplier applicable is 18. Thus, the total loss of dependency redetermined by this Court works out to

¶91

¶92

Rs.16,508x12x18x50/100=Rs.17,82,864/-. Under

¶93

conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,10,000/- i.e. Rs.40,000/- each to claimants 1 and 2 towards parental consortium and Rs.30,000/towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation re-determined comes to

¶94

Rs.18,92,864/-. At Para 47 of the judgment, it is forthcoming that the Corporation immediately after the accident has paid Rs.15,000/-. The same needs to be deducted. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs.18,77,864/- to which the claimants are held entitled with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶95

Hence, the following:

¶96

ORDER

¶97

i) The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA.No.6427/2018 is dismissed and the appeal

¶98

¶99

filed by the Corporation in MFA.No.4764/2017 is allowed in part.

¶100

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.18,77,864/- as against Rs.19,57,704/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶101

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

¶102

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.

¶103

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

¶104

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶105

¶106

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

¶107

viii) All pending I.As., if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶108

Sd/JUDGE

¶109

Sd/JUDGE

¶110

*alb/-.

Sri. Siddaramachar v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Siddaramachar v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. R. Rajkumar Vs the Managing Director

Sri N Venkatesh Vs Sri N Krishnaiah

M/S B S K Rice Industries Vs M/S Chinmadhu Agro Sales Private Limited

Sri Lakshme Gowda Vs Managing Director

Sri. Venkatramana H Kodi Vs Sri. Somashekar

Sri. Venkatramana H. Kodi Vs Sri. Somashekar