Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Smt Kusuma

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021MFA/2524/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. It upheld the 50% contributory negligence apportionment but reduced the compensation from Rs.47.71 lakh to Rs.47.10 lakh and the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation reduced to Rs.47,10,295/-. Interest rate reduced to 6% p.a. Apportionment of liability confirmed at 50% each.

The Managing Director Vs Smt Kusuma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

M.F.A.No.2524/2016 c/w M.F.A.No.6552/2016 (MV)

¶8

IN M.F.A.No.2524/2016:

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

¶13

AND :

¶14

1 . SMT.KUSUMA W/O LATE R.MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶15

2 . MASTER SUSHANTH M., S/O LATE R.MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶16

3 . KUM. RACHANA M., D/O LATE R.MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶17

SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

RESPONDENT NO.1. SMT.KUSUMA

¶20

4 . SMT.MUNIKADIRAMMA @ MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA @ DRIVER RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶21

ALL ARE R/AT SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, KEB ROAD, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105

¶22

5 . SRI K.LOKESH S/O KONDAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT SAI NILAYA, NAGANDAHALLI ROAD, CHANNASANDRA, KADUGODI POST, K.R. PURAM, BANGALROE 560067.

¶23

6 . UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 …RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA N., ADV. FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R-6; R-2 & R-3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY R-1; R-5 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED.)

¶25

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.6831/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 21^ST ACMM, 23^RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.47,71,114/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL.

¶26

IN M.F.A.No.6552/2016:

¶27

BETWEEN :

¶28

1 . SMT.KUSUMA W/O LATE MANJUNATHA R., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶29

¶30

2 . MASTER SUSHANTH M., S/O LATE MANJUNATHA R., AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶31

3 . KUM. RACHANA M., D/O LATE MANJUNATHA R., AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶32

4 . SMT.MUNIKADIRAMMA @ MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA @ DRIVER RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS MINOR APPELLANTS 2 & 3 ARE REP. BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN 1^ST APPELLANT ALL ARE R/AT SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, KEB ROAD, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105 ...APPELLANTS

¶33

(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA N., ADV.)

¶34

AND :

¶35

1 . SRI K.LOKESH S/O KONDAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT SAI NILAYA, NAGANDAHALLI ROAD, CHANNASANDRA, KADUGODI POST, K.R. PURAM, BANGALROE 560067.

¶36

2 . UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 REP.BY ITS MANAGER.

¶37

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,

¶38

¶39

BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R-2; SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R-3;

¶41

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.04.2018 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH. )

¶42

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.6831/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 21^ST ACMM, 23^RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶43

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) has filed MFA No.2524/2016 whereas the claimants have filed MFA No.6552/2016 challenging the judgment and award dated 21.01.2016 passed in MVC No.6831/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-25) (‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶46

The claimants instituted the petition under

¶47

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of R. Manjunatha

¶48

¶49

contending that he sustained grievous injuries in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 11.05.2013 while working as conductor in KSRTC Rajahamsa Bus bearing registration No.KA-40-F-355 on the route Chennai to Bengaluru via Kolar at 4.00 a.m. It was alleged that the said accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver of tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-53-A-3669 as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC bus. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot.

¶50

It was contended that the deceased was aged about 35 years, working as a Conductor and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He used to contribute the entire amount to the maintenance of the family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants are suffering loss of dependency besides loss of love and

¶51

¶52

affection etc., On these set of facts and grounds, the claimants sought for compensation.

¶53

On issuance of summons by the Tribunal,

¶54

respondent No.2 – insurer of the tipper lorry appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments. It was contended that the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus was the cause for the accident. The driver of the tipper lorry (offending vehicle) did not possess valid and effective driving licence and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶55

Respondent No.3 - KSRTC appeared through

¶56

its counsel and filed written statement. The defence set up was that the cause for the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry by its driver. It was inter alia contended that the compensation sought is exorbitant.

¶57

¶58

6. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed

¶59

and answered as per the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment allowing the petition awarding total compensation of Rs.47,71,114/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶60

7. Being aggrieved, the KSRTC as well the

¶61

claimants are before this Court.

¶62

The KSRTC has challenged the contributory negligence of 50% fixed on the driver of the KSRTC bus as erroneous and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as exorbitant. The claimants have sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶63

It is borne out from the records that the tipper lorry was parked on the road without switching on the indicators or giving any signals. The accident in question occurred around 4.00 a.m. It is obvious that in

¶64

¶65

the wee hours, it is unrealistic for the plying vehicles on the road to expect a parked tipper lorry on the road that too sans any indicators. Ex.P2 - sketch and mahazar clearly demonstrate the negligence of both the drivers. Had the driver of the KSRTC bus taken little care and caution in maintaining the moderate speed of the vehicle i.e., without any rash and negligent driving, the accident in question ought to have been averted. The police records especially Ex.P6 – charge-sheet indicates that Investigating Officer has registered the case against the drivers of both the offending vehicles. Having regard to these vital aspects, the Tribunal has rightly apportioned the contributory negligence of 50% each on the drivers of both the vehicles which cannot be faulted with.

¶66

As regards the quantum of compensation, it

¶67

is discernable that the deceased was working as the conductor in the KSRTC bus and drawing monthly

¶68

¶69

salary of Rs.23,173/- as per Ex.P7. The total annual income would be Rs.2,78,076/-. Deducting the income tax of Rs.7,807/- applicable during the relevant assessment year and professional tax of Rs.2,400/-, totally Rs.10,207/-, the annual income would be Rs.2,67,869/-. Adding 50% of the same towards future prospects, the total income would be Rs.4,01,804/-. Applying the multiplier of ‘15’ as the deceased was aged about 37 years as per Ex.P5 – PM report and deducting 1/4^th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.45,20,295/- (4,01,804 x 15 x ¾).

¶70

In terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex

¶71

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Limited v/s. Somwati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss

¶72

10 -

¶73

of spousal consortium; Rs.80,000/- towards loss of parental consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each minor child); Rs.40,000/towards loss of filial consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses.

¶74

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶75

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:

¶76

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	45,20,295/-
2.	Loss of spousal consortium	40,000/-
3.	Loss of parental consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each minorchild)	80,000/-
4.	Loss of filialconsortium	40,000/-
5.	Loss ofestate	15,000/-
6.	Towards funeral expenses	15,000/-
	Total	47,10,295/-

¶77

However, the rate of interest awarded by the

¶78

Tribunal at 9% per annum requires to be reduced to 6%

¶79

per annum keeping in mind the relevant factors like prevailing rate of interest and also to maintain

¶80

11 -

¶81

uniformity in the orders as the interest is now awarded at 6% per annum consistently in identical circumstances by this Court.

¶82

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.47,10,295/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶83

Hence, the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i) MFA No.2524/2016 filed by the KSRTC is allowed in part. ii) MFA No.6552/2016 filed by the

¶86

claimants stands dismissed.

¶87

iii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.47,10,295/(Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Five only) as against

¶88

12 -

¶89

Rs.47,71,114/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶90

iv) The finding of the Tribunal as far as negligence fixing 50% on the driver of the KSRTC bus and 50% on the driver of the bus is confirmed.

¶91

v) Accordingly, the liability is fastened at 50% on the insurer of the tipper lorry and 50% on the KSRTC (corporation).

¶92

vi) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as apportionment and disbursement remains intact. vii) The Corporation and insurer of the tipper lorry 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.

¶93

13 -

¶94

viii) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal. ix) Draw modified award accordingly. x) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. xi) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶95

SD/JUDGE

¶96

SD/JUDGE

¶97

PMR

The Managing Director v. Smt Kusuma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Smt Kusuma

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

M/S Ncc Limited Vs M/S Mangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd.

The Regional Director Vs M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Smt Anitha D Souza Vs Smt Philomina D Souza

The Manager Vs Smt Kalavathi

Sri. K C Preetham Vs Sri. P Nageshwara Rao

Smt. Shylaja Vs the Managing Director