Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Thahira

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2020MFA/9425/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal by the KSRTC against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. While accepting liability, the Court rejected the claimed quantum, reassessed the deceased's income, and modified the compensation amount from Rs. 22.4 lakhs to Rs. 19.036 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part. The total compensation was modified and reduced to Rs. 19,03,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. Liability and apportionment remain intact.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^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.9425 OF 2015(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MANGALORE DIVISION LALBAGH, MANGALARU BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶11

....APPELLANT

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THAHIRA W/O LATE ABDUL LATHEEF @ LATHEEF AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶15

2 . BABY MOHAMMED SHAZIM S/O LATE ABDUL LATHEEF @ LATHEEF AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2 MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY THAHIRA BY HIS NATURAL

¶16

¶17

GUARDIAN AND MOTHER

¶18

3 . M. HASSAINAR S/O LATE MOIDEENABBA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶19

4 . ALIMAMMA W/O HASSAINAR M AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶20

R/O D NO. 1-95-2 ISLAMABAD, MUGULITHADKA CHARMADY VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK

¶21

PRESENTLY R/AT ZAM ZAM MANIL MANKYSTAND MANGALARU-575 001

¶22

5 . PARASURAMAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O CHALLAKERE, KUSHTHAGI TALUK KOPPALA DISTRICT-583 277

¶23

….RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD .B.N, ADVOCATE R1, R3 AND R4 R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R2, V/O DATED 12.12.2019 NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1103/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-3, 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The captioned appeal is filed by the KSRTC (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") against the impugned judgment and award dated 31.8.2015 passed in MVC.No.1103/2013 by the II Additional District Judge and III Additional MACT, Mangaluru(DK) challenging negligence as well as quantum.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶31

Respondents 1 to 4-claimants filed a claim

¶32

petition by contending that on 19.2.2013, the husband of first respondent namely Abdul Latheef was proceeding towards Mangaluru on his bike bearing Regn.No.KA-21-L-9780 and when he reached near Panakaje Mosque, Sonandoor village of Belthangady Taluk, at about 8.30 a.m. the driver of the offending

¶33

¶34

KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-19-F-2463 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike. Due to the impact, the husband of the first respondent fell down and sustained grievous multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Punkalkatte, where the doctor declared him as brought dead. Claimants 1 to 4 further contended that the deceased was working as a driver and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Respondents 1 to 4 were entirely dependant on the income of the deceased. The accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Hence, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs.

¶35

The appellant-Corporation on receipt of notice contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The Corporation specifically contended that the deceased also contributed to the negligence while

¶36

¶37

riding his motor bike. The appellant-Corporation also disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased. On these set of grounds the appellantCorporation sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶38

The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings, frame the following issues:

¶39

" 1. Whether the petitioners are able to prove that on 19.02.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. while the deceased Abdul Latheef was proceeding towards Mangaluru side by riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-21-L-9780, when he reached near Panakaje Mosque Sonandoor village of Belthangady Taluk, a K.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19-F-2463 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle, due to the impact, the deceased has sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death at Government hospital at Punjalkatte? 2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the deceased being a tort feasor and guilty or contributory negligence?

¶40

¶41

3. Whether 2^nd respondent proves that the rider of the motorcycle (deceased) bearing Reg.No.KA-21-L-9780 did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?

¶42

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, from whom?

¶43

5. What order or award?"

¶44

Claimants-Respondents 1 to 4 in support of their contention examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and got in support of ocular evidence relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant-Corporation examined the driver of the offending bus as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R7.

¶45

The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 in the affirmative holding that it is the driver of the offending bus who was rash and negligent.

¶46

¶47

While determining the quantum, the tribunal

¶48

notionally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. By adding 50% towards future prospects and deducting 1/3^rd towards personal

¶49

expenses and applying the multiplier of 17, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,40,000/- and under conventional heads, Rs. 2 lakhs is awarded. In all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.22,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has preferred this appeal.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶51

appellant -Corporation would vehemently argue and contend that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is palpably erroneous and contrary to the evidence on

¶52

record. The counsel would further submit that the photographs produced by the Corporation by way of rebuttal evidence would clinch the issue and establish

¶53

¶54

that the deceased also contributed his negligence. He would rely on the spot sketch as per Ex.P9 and submit that the deceased who was proceeding on the bike towards Mangaluru also contributed to the accident and the same is forthcoming from the sketch as per Ex.P9.

¶55

On quantum, the learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal has notionally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and the same is without any basis and further, the Tribunal has erred in adding 50% towards future prospects. Hence, the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency needs to be re-determined.

¶56

Per contra, learned counsel for claimantsrespondents 1 to 4 would vehemently argue and contend before us that the clinching evidence on record would clearly shows that it is the driver of the

¶57

¶58

bus who was rash and negligent and has caused the

¶59

death. The finding is based on the legal evidence placed on record by the claimants and there are no infirmities in the finding which would warrant interference by this Court.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the claimants

¶61

as well as the Insurance Company. Perused the pleadings and re-assessed the entire evidence on record.

¶62

8. Regarding Negligence:

¶63

The respondents 1 to 4-claimants to establish

¶64

the negligence oF the driver of the offending bus have relied on the first information report(Ex.P1), spot mahazar(Ex.P4), Spot sketch ( Ex.P9), charge sheet (Ex.P7). Relying on these documents, the claimants have lead in ocular evidence. To rebut this contention, the appellant-Corporation has produced photographs

¶65

¶66

and also adduced the evidence of the driver of the offending bus, who is examined as R.W.1.

¶67

The self sworn testimony of R.W.1 would not

¶68

come to the aid of the appellant-Corporation and same cannot displace the evidence adduced by respondents 1 to 4-claimants. The spot sketch as per Ex.P9 clearly shows that the incident has occurred on the extreme right side when the driver of the offending bus was required to maintain and proceed on the left side of the road. The photographs produced would be of no assistance since the same are taken not at the spot where the accident has taken place. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal by taking holistic view of the police records has answered issue No.1 in the affirmative. We are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is just and proper and does not warrant interference.

¶69

¶70

9. Regarding quantum:

¶71

compensation has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal was of the view that it has to be notionally assessed. While doing so, the Tribunal has

¶72

not assigned any reasons. The income assessed at Rs.10,000/- in absence of proof of income is on the higher side. In the absence of the same, we would rely on the chart of the Legal services authority and assess the income notionally at 8,000/-. If deceased was working as a driver in a private sector, the Tribunal erred in adding 50%. By following the guidelines in Pranay Sethi's case [2017 ACJ 2700], we would add 40% to the income assessed by us at Rs.8,000/- which comes to Rs.8,000x40/100= Rs.11,200/-. Deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 17, the

¶73

¶74

compensation under the head of loss of dependency is re-determined at Rs.17,13,600/-. Under conventional heads a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- is awarded i.e. Rs.40,000/- to the first claimant towards spousal consortium, Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.2 towards parental consortium, Rs.40,000/- to claimants 3 and 4 towards filial consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation re-determined comes to Rs.19,03,600/to which the claimants are held entitled with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

¶75

8. Hence, the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to

¶78

¶79

Rs.19,03,600/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Three Thousand Six Hundred only) as against Rs.22,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶80

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

¶81

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.

¶82

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

¶83

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶84

¶85

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

¶86

viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

*alb/-.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Thahira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Thahira

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

Sri S. Rajamani Vs Sri Thimmegowda

Sri. D Niranjanamurthy Vs the New India Insurance Company Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Rekha R

V. Mohan Narayan Vs Mr. Rakesh Choudhary

Mr Briju Mohan Vs M/S National Insurance Company Ltd.

Naveen N C Vs Briju Mohan