Dismissed

A. P. S. R. T. C. v. Smt Asha

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2022MFA/2091/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a simple motor accident appeal (MFA No.2091/2018), dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant bus corporation seeking to set aside the Tribunal's award of compensation. The judge found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's finding of rash/negligent driving and held the granted compensation as just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; amount in deposit directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

A. P. S. R. T. C. Vs Smt Asha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2091/2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A.P.S.R.T.C. REP BY IT’S MANAGER, TANK BUND ROAD, NEAR KEMPEGOWDA BUS STATION, SUBHASH NAGAR, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C. MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. ASHA, W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, @ MUNIVANKATA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶13

KUM. LAVANYA, D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, @ MUNIVANKATA,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS (MINOR),

¶15

MASTER VEDANTH, D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,

¶16

@ MUNIVANKATA,

¶17

AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS (MINOR),

¶18

¶19

R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, REP BY THEIR MOTHER / NATURAL GUARDIAN / P1.

¶20

SMT. PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE BACHAPPA, @ VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶21

ALL ARE R/AT, HIREPALYA VILLAGE, SANTHEKALLAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKBALLAPUR DIST – 562 101

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. N.GOPALKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.357/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT KOLAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

This is an appeal by respondent – corporation seeking

¶28

dismissal of the claim petition.

¶29

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶30

¶31

Respondentcorporation has sought for

¶32

dismissal of claim petition contending that the vehicle in question is not at all involved in the accident, the petitioner and her witnesses have failed to prove the said fact and ultimately even if the involvement of the vehicle in question is held to be proved, the compensation granted is on the higher side.

¶33

On the other hand petitioners have supported the impugned judgment and award and have sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶34

FACTS: It is the case of the petitioners that they are the wife, children and mother of deceased V.Munivenkatappa @ Munivenkata (hereinafter referred to as deceased) on 24.06.2011 at around 5.30 p.m, while deceased was riding Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 40/L–4182 from ‘H’ Cross towards Hirepalya, near Beechagondanahalli on BengaluruChintamani Road, accident occurred due to rash or

¶35

¶36

negligent driving by the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-28/Z-6049 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), as a result of which deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot.

¶37

Before the Tribunal, respondent has filed written statement contending the grounds urged in the

¶38

memorandum of appeal.

¶39

Based on the pleadings, Tribunal has framed the

¶40

issues.

¶41

During enquiry petitioner is examined as PW-1

¶42

and one witness as PW-2, Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 are marked.

¶43

Respondent has not led any evidence.

¶44

Vide impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.13,04,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as detailed below:

¶45

¶46

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of income/dependency	12,09,600
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of consortium	40,000
Loss of love and affection	25,000
Funeral obsequies including transportation of the dead body	15,000
TOTAL	13,04,600 with interest @ 6%p.a.

¶47

11. Petitioners have not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶48

Based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and as such respondent-corporation is liable to pay the compensation. I find no reason to interfere with the said findings.

¶49

The incident has taken placed on 24.06.2011. Based on the post mortem report, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 32 years and

¶50

¶51

consequently, the multiplier 16 is appropriate. Though the petitioners claim that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/p.m., in the absence of evidence to support the same, based on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Committee, the notional income at Rs.6,000/considered by the Tribunal is correct. Since, deceased was aged below 40 years and was engaged in private employment, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma Insurance Co., case the Tribunal has rightly added 40% of income at Rs.2,400/- towards loss of future prospects making the total income as Rs.8,400/-.

¶52

Since there are four dependents, the Tribunal has rightly deducted ¼ of income towards personal and living expenses of deceased and taken 3/4^th of income for calculating loss of dependency, which is 8,400 x 12 x 16 x ¾ = 12,09,600/-. Similarly, under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. It has granted Rs.40,000/- under the

¶53

¶54

head loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. I find no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, in all the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.13,04,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. which is just and reasonable.

¶55

In the result appeal fails and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) Appeal is dismissed.

¶58

(ii) The amount in deposit is directed to be

¶59

transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

A. P. S. R. T. C. v. Smt Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. P. S. R. T. C. v. Smt Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri T P Ravindran Vs Mr a Rathnam @ Murugan

Kum Usha Vs Sri Arun Kumar

Mr. Jayanth Vs Mr. M a Abdul Kunhi

Sri Aslam Pasha Vs Sri Y v Venkataramappa

Shivayogi Kiran S Vs Shivakumar

Sri Bheemanna Vs Sri Hullurappa H