Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Nanjaiah

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2021MFA/3866/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal by the Road Transport Corporation against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award was partly allowed. The High Court confirmed the Tribunal's finding on equal negligence between the bus and car drivers and the quantum of compensation but modified the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Interest reduced from 9% to 6% per annum; otherwise the Tribunal's judgment on liability and compensation is confirmed.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.3866 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NORTH WESTERN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NWKRTC), CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580031, (BUT WRONGLY SHOWN AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA STATE ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HUBLI IN THE CAUSE TITLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

NANJAIAH, S/O.LATE BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,

¶14

SMT THIMMAKKA W/O NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/A NO.12, JOGH ROAD, KARGAL KALONI-3, KARGAL, TQ:SAGARA, DIST:SHIMOGA-577001.

¶17

MASTER THARUN J

¶18

S/O LATE JAGADEESHA B & LATE SMT.KUMUDA M, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS MATERNAL GRAND FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND SRI MAYANA GOWDA N. S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4

¶19

SRI MAYANA GOWDA N S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED 61 YEARS,

¶20

SMT VIJAYAMMA W/O MAYANNA GOWDA N, AGED 49 YEARS,

¶21

RESPONDENT NO.3, 4 AND 5 R/AT NO.1, 6TH "B" MAIN ROAD, SRIKANTESWARANGAR, SHANKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560096.

¶22

SMT DEEPIKA W/O SHIVA KUMAR, AND D/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.423, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVEHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560079.

¶23

¶24

SRI SHIVA REDDY, S/O SOMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER IN KSRTC, HUBLI DEPOT, HAVING BADGE NO.9839, R/AT NAGANURU VILLAGE, NAVALAGUNDA TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT, PIN:582208.

¶25

SRI NAGESH B S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.269, GROUND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN, NAGADEVANAHALLI, GNANBHARATHI POST, BANGALORE-560056.

¶26

SRI M B CHANDRASHEKAR S/O BASAVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.934/1, MEGHALAPURA, MYSORE-571130. ... RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI CHITTAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6, R7 AND R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, SRI PRASANNA D.P, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶28

¶29

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3022/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY(SCCH-14), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.27,14,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.

¶30

¶31

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the Corporation against the judgment dated 14.02.2017 in MVC. No.3022/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

¶34

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.08.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., when Bettegowda, Nagamma, Jagadeesha, Kumuda and Master Dhanush were travelling in Hyundai i20 Car bearing registration No.KA-09-A-9983 from their native place, Kargal, Sagara Taluk, Shivamogga District towards Bengaluru near Bandekere, on National Highway 206, Banawara, Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan district, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-27-F472 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

¶35

¶36

dashed against the Hyundai i20 car in which the above said persons were traveling. Due to the impact, all the inmates were grievously injured and succumbed to the accidental injures.

¶37

The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation interalia contending that the deceased persons were hale and healthy prior to the accident. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,00,000/- along with interest.

¶38

On service of notice, the respondents No.1, 3 and 5 appeared through their counsel and respondent No.1 and 5 filed the similar written statement. Respondent No.3 filed separate written statement. Respondent No.5-Corporation denied the averments made in the claim petition as false and contended that

¶39

¶40

the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties, that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The car driver is solely responsible for the accident as he drove the car without following the traffic rules in order to overtake a car which was proceeding ahead of him to the extreme right side of the road and observing the same, the driver of the bus took his bus to the extreme left side of the road and stopped it. That inspite of the same, due to over speeding, the driver of the car lost control and dashed against the bus. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

¶41

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶42

the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. Claimants examined, claimants No.4 and 6 as P.W.1 and 2 and one witness as P.W.3 and marked

¶43

¶44

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. The respondent No.3 examined himself as RW.1 and marked document Ex.R.1. The respondent No.5 has examined his driver as R.W.2 and marked documents Ex.R2 to R6.

¶45

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. It was further held that as a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to compensation and accordingly awarded compensation amount of Rs.8,76,000/to Bettegowda, Rs.4,00,000/to Nagamma, Rs.30,00,000/- to Jagadeesh, Rs.7,42,000/to Kumuda and Rs.4,10,000/- to Dhanush along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. fixing the 50% liability on the appellant.

¶46

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the Tribunal having regard to the evidence on record especially the sketch at Ex.P.6 ought to have attributed entire negligence on the part of the deceased Bettegowada. He further submitted that claimants No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Bettegowda and they were not dependent on him for their livelihood. He further submitted that the compensation amount awarded for the death of Master Dhanush is on the higher side.

¶48

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that the drivers of the car and also the offending bus has equally contributed for the occurrence of the accident. He further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claaimants is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference.

¶49

¶50

9. We have considered the submissions made

¶51

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶52

The questions which arises for our

¶53

consideration in this appeal is with regard to the negligence attributed on the part of the driver of the offending bus for causing the accident and also with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶54

It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 5.08.2013 because of the collusion between the car

¶55

and the bus belonging to the Corporation. It is also not in dispute that charge sheet was filed against the driver of the car and also the driver of the bus. The Corporation in order to substantiate its claim that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car examined the driver of the Bus as RW.2. R.W.2 has admitted that he filed a private complaint against the driver of the car after three days

¶56

¶57

from the date of accident though complaint was registered against him on the date of the accident itself. The Tribunal after elaborately considering the evidence of P.W.3 the first informant in Crime No.158/2013 which culminated in filing of charge sheet against the drivers of the car and bus and also considering the evidence of R.W.2 and the sketch at Ex.P.6 has held that both the drivers have contributed equally for the occurrence of the accident. In the absence of contrary evidence the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with.

¶58

The Tribunal considering the evidence of the

¶59

claimants has held that the claimants No.1 and 2 were depending on the income of the deceased Bettegowda and as such are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of the claimants so as to disbelieve their claim. Hence, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant corporation that the claimant Nos.1 and 2 are

¶60

¶61

not entitled for compensation towards loss of

¶62

dependency is not acceptable.

¶63

13 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- for the death of Master Dhanush who was aged one year at the time of the accident. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in

¶64

'BASAVARAJ & ORS. Vs. G.VEERANNA & ORS.' IN MFA NO.21210/2013 PASSED ON 08.08.2013 and also in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 and in the case of ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ,

¶65

the compensation amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- awarded by the

¶66

¶67

Tribunal towards, loss of dependency, loss of consortium and loss of estate and funeral expenses is just and proper

¶68

14 The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a on the compensation payable to the claimants

¶69

which is on the higher side and the same is reduced to 6% p.a.

¶70

For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment passed by the Tribunal is confirmed so far it relates to attributing negligence equally on the drivers of the car and the bus and also the quantum of compensation amount awarded to the claimants. However, the impugned judgment so far it relates to awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a. is modified and it is held that the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation on the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants.

¶71

¶72