Partly allowed

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Susheelamma

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2021MFA/4590/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the BMC's appeal but modified the Tribunal's award. The Court reduced the compensation to Rs.22,99,420/- by adjusting the deceased's notional income to Rs.12,500/- per month based on Karnataka Legal Services Authority guidelines and applying standard multipliers for loss of dependency, consortium, and estate expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal was held at Rs.29,45,000/- but modified to Rs.22,99,420/-; interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing maintained.

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE 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.4590 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE NGO COLONY, K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE 560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT RENUKA H.R., ADV.,)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SUSHEELAMMA

¶15

W/O KAPU PRABHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶16

BHARATHA SIMHA REDDY S/O KAPU PRABHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶17

LALITHA

¶18

D/O KAPU PRABHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER RESP.NO.1 MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶19

¶20

4. KAPU ESHWARAMMA W/O ANJANAPPA

¶21

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶22

ALL R/O NO. 4-146 MULAKALACHERUVU ANANTHPURA DISTRICT AP 515123 ... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. G. NARASI REDDY., FOR R1 TO 4 R3 MINOR REPT. BY R-1)

¶24

¶25

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.42/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, DODDABALLAPURA AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.29,45,000/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

¶29

for short) is filed by the Appellant- Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) challenging the Judgment and award dated 14.01.2020 passed in MVC No.42/2019 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-at Doddaballapura.

¶30

¶31

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 03.05.2018 at about 6.45 p.m. when the deceased Prabhakar Reddy was crossing the road at Bengaluru-Doddaballapura Road, opposite to SCS Petrol Bunk, near Aswattakatte, Bashettyhalli village, a BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-01-FA-73 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶32

The claimants thereupon filed a petition

¶33

under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and was a Building Contractor(Mestri) and also an Agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the BMTC

¶34

¶35

Bus. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/- along with interest.

¶36

The Respondent-BMTC filed written

¶37

statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also pleaded that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the Bus driver but it was due to the negligence of the deceased who had suddenly crossed the road without observing the movements of vehicles. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

¶38

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence. The

¶39

¶40

Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the BMTC bus. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.29,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- in the absence of proof of income. It is further submitted that the claimants are not entitled for addition of income towards future prospects since the deceased was a coolie. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Claimants-respondents No.1 to 4 the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/p.m. considering the fact that the deceased was building contractor (Mestri) by avocation and also an

¶42

¶43

agriculturist. It is further submitted that the

¶44

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference.

¶45

We have considered the submissions made

¶46

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2018. It is also not in dispute that deceased at the time of accident was aged about 40 years. The claimants have not placed any evidence to substantiate their claim

¶47

that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m. in the absence of evidence on record. Therefore, if notional income of the deceased is assessed as per the guidelines

¶48

¶49

issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, notional income comes to Rs.12,500/- per month.

¶50

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157, 25% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,625/-. Since, the number of dependents is 4, therefore, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.11,719/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 47 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘15’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs. 11,719 x 12 x 15) i.e., Rs.21,09,420/-/- on account of loss of dependency.

¶51

In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶52

‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU

¶53

¶54

RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED

¶55

INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. The amount of compensation awarded under the head 'medical expenses' is maintained. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.22,99,420/as against Rs.29,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.. The total compensation awarded to the claimants shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶56

¶57