Partly allowed

Smt. Shylaja v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021MFA/4856/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Vehicles Appeal filed by death claimants against the Tribunal's judgment. The court reassessed the quantum of compensation for the death of the deceased due to a road traffic accident caused by a tree falling on a KSRTC bus. Based on proved income documents and Supreme Court guidelines on consortium, the court enhanced the total compensation to Rs.23,18,341/- with

What did the court decide?

Modified and enhanced compensation from Rs.15,11,000/- to Rs.23,18,341/- with 6% interest; liability fixed; apportionment ordered; balance 50% released, 50% in fixed deposit for 3 years.

Smt. Shylaja Vs the Managing Director — Cheque Dishonour | 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.4856/2015 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 . SMT.SHYLAJA W/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶10

2 . B.SHARADHA D/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GARDIAN SMT.SHYLAJA.

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.794, 12^TH B CROSS, DOUBLE ROAD, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, K.H.B., BANGALORE-560064. ...APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SMT.SUDHA D., ADV. FOR SRI ANIL S. PARASHANALLI, ADV.)

¶13

AND :

¶14

1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C. DEPOT, BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶15

¶16

2 . SHIVASHAARANAPPA S/O DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶17

3 . HONNAMMA W/O SHIVASHAARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶18

THE RESPONDENT No.2 & 3 ARE R/AT NO.794, B SECTOR, 21^ST STAGE, DOUBLE ROAD, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, BANGALORE-560064. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI ASHOK B. PATIL, AD. FOR R-2 & R-3.)

¶20

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2142/2014 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 27^TH ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

This appeal by the claimants is directed against

¶24

the judgment and award dated 28.03.2015 passed in MVC No.2142/2014 on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Judge, 27^th ACMM, MACT, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶25

¶26

2. Claimants instituted the petition under

¶27

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Basavaraju in the road traffic accident.

¶28

It was averred in the claim petition that on 12.10.2013 at about 7.15 p.m., when the deceased – Basavaraju was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-41-F-097 (offending bus) on NH-7 Road (Doddaballapur – Dabaspet), near Doddaballapur, the branch of a tree fell down on the top of the bus. Due to the said impact, the driver of the bus lost control and moved ahead for about 120 feet and dashed against another standing tree. Due to the said impact, both the driver of the said bus and the deceased - Basavaraju succumbed to the grievous injuries on the spot.

¶29

It was contended that the deceased died in harness; he was working as a Senior Officer at Vijaya Karnataka, Bangalore and drawing salary of

¶30

¶31

Rs.40,837/- per month besides doing agricultural work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In all, he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The sudden death of the deceased has caused mental agony and loss of dependency, loss of love and affection etc., to the claimants. On these set of facts and grounds, the claimants sought for compensation.

¶32

On issuance of summons by the Tribunal,

¶33

the respondent - KSRTC appeared through its counsel and contested the claim by filing the written statement. It was contended that the accident took place due to natural calamity and the driver of the bus was no way responsible for the accident. However, on humanitarian ground, KSRTC has paid interim compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the father of the deceased. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant.

¶34

- 5 -

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were

¶36

framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the

¶37

impugned judgment allowing the petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.15,11,000/- after deducting Rs.2,50,000/- interim compensation paid by the KSRTC with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

¶38

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

¶39

compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

¶40

It is discernable from the records that the

¶41

deceased died in the accident in question due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Now the fulcrum of dispute rests on the quantum of compensation awarded whether is just and reasonable.

¶42

The claimants contended that the deceased

¶43

was working as a Senior Officer at Vijaya Karnataka,

¶44

¶45

Bangalore, earning Rs.40,837/- per month and Rs.10,000/- per month from agricultural activities. No corroborative evidence was placed on record to substantiate the same. Accordingly, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and adding 30% of the same towards future prospects, reckoned the total loss of dependency. It was categorically observed that no income tax returns or bank statements of the deceased were produced. In the present appeal proceedings, the appellants/claimants have produced the copies of Form No.16 to establish the monthly income of the deceased, according to which the annual income of the deceased could be re-determined at Rs.2,22,160/-. Deducting the income tax amounting to Rs.221/- and professional tax of Rs.2,400/-, the annual income would be Rs.2,19,539/-. Adding 25% of the same towards future prospects, the total income would be Rs.2,74,424/-. In view of the documents furnished by the appellants,

¶46

¶47

respondent No.2 cannot be construed as dependant of the deceased. Hence, we are deducting 1/3^rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Applying the multiplier of ‘13’ as the deceased was in the age group of 46 to 50 years at the time of the accident and deducting 1/3^rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the total loss of dependency would work out to Rs.23,78,341/(2,74,424 x 13 x 2/3).

¶48

In terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex

¶49

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 of spousal consortium; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium; Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each parent); Rs.15,000/-

¶50

¶51

towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶52

11. It is not in dispute that the KSRTC has paid

¶53

the interim compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the father of the deceased.

¶54

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶55

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

¶56

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	23,78,341/-
2.	Loss of spousal consortium	40,000/-
3.	Loss of parental consortium	40,000/-
4.	Loss of filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each parent)	80,000/-
5.	Loss ofestate	15,000/-
6.	Towards funeral expenses	15,000/-
	Total	25,68,341/-
Less:	InterimCompensation	2,50,000/-
Ent	itled compensation	23,18,341/-

¶57

¶58

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.23,18,341/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶59

Hence, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.23,18,341/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred and Forty One only) as against Rs.15,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶62

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability remains intact.

¶63

- 10 -

¶64

iv) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as apportionment and disbursement of Rs.15,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal remains intact.

¶65

v) The insurance company 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. vi) Out of the enhanced compensation amount, apportionment shall be made in the ratio of 40:35:25 to claimant Nos.1, 2 and respondent No.3 (mother) respectively. In the respective shares of claimant Nos.1, 2 and respondent No.3 (mother), 50% of the amount shall be kept in the fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in their individual names for a period of 3 years and they

¶66

11 -

¶67

are entitled to withdraw the interest accrued periodically on the said fixed deposits. The balance 50% shall be released in their favour subject to due identification in accordance with law. vii) Draw modified award accordingly. viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

PMR

Smt. Shylaja v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shylaja v. the 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

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 Managing Director Vs Smt Kusuma

The Manager Vs Smt Kalavathi

Sri. K C Preetham Vs Sri. P Nageshwara Rao