Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. B. Prabhuswamy @ Prabhu

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2022MFA/337/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This joint appeal challenged the compensation quantum in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in assessing income, allowing the claimants' appeal in part and modifying the award to Rs. 9,72,948/- by considering the deceased's hypothetical earnings and loss of dependency.

What did the court decide?

The appeal by the claimants was allowed and the Tribunal's award was modified to Rs. 9,72,948/-; the appeal by the KSRTC was dismissed.

The Managing Director Vs B. Prabhuswamy @… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2805/2014 (MV-D) C/W M.F.A.NO.337/2014 (MV-D)

¶7

IN M.F.A.NO.2805/2014:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. PRABHUSWAMY @ PRABHU S/O LATE BASAANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶10

In view of death of 2. MR. BASAVARAJU B. Appellant No.2, the S/O LATE BASAANNA Appellant No.1 is treated as LR of Appellant No.2 AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS Amendment carried out as BOTH ARE R/AT NO.41/2/C, per order dated 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 17.11.2022. BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-560023.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., BANGALORE-560027.

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1492/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 14^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

IN M.F.A. NO.337/2014:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. (BUS NO.KA-09-F-4045) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶22

…APPELLANT

¶23

(SRI. F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

B.PRABHUSWAMY @ PRABHU SON OF LATE BASAANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶26

BASAVARAJU B. S/O LATE BASAANNA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶27

As the respondent No.2 is dead the 1^st respondent is treated as LR of deceased respondent No.2.

¶28

Amended as per Court order dated 17.11.2022.

¶29

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.41/2/C, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-560023.

¶30

AND ALSO R/AT MAVENAHALLI (V)

¶31

¶32

T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571124.

¶33

…RESPONDENT

¶34

(SRI. B. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶35

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1492/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 14^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE CITY, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,81,000/- WITH INTEREST @6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT.

¶36

THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and

¶39

the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC.

¶40

These appeals are filed by the claimants as well as

¶41

KSRTC challenging the judgment and award dated 22.08.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.1492/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶42

¶43

The parties are referred to as per their original

¶44

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶45

The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that they are the children of the deceased - Jayamma. On account of untimely death of their mother, they

¶46

lost earning member of the family. To substantiate their claim, the claimant No.1 got himself examined as PW.1 and examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The respondent - KSRTC examined bus driver as RW.1 and did not mark any documents. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization after deducting Rs.50,000/- interim relief paid to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants and the KSRTC are before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶47

¶48

During the pendency of these appeals, the claimant No.2 died and claimant No.1 is ordered to be treated as legal representative of claimant No.2.

¶49

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants before this Court is that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/- since the deceased was doing vegetable and flower business as well as agricultural work. Further, the compensation awarded on the other heads is very meager and the same requires to be enhanced.

¶50

Per contra, the learned counsel for the KSRTC submits that the claimants are the major sons of the deceased and hence, the question of loss of dependency does not arise. Therefore, question of enhancing the compensation does not arise.

¶51

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material placed on record, there is no dispute with regard to the death of the mother of the claimants in the

¶52

¶53

accident. The claimants in the claim petition have mentioned their age as 22 and 19 years at the time of the accident. However, the learned counsel for the KSRTC would contend that in terms of Ex.P8 - notarized copy of Election I.D. cards of the claimants, their age is mentioned as 27 and 24 years. Though the age of the claimants is mentioned as 27 and 24 years, it is not brought on record that they were earning members and have no permanent source of income. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Birender and others reported in 2020 (11) SCC 356 , while entertaining the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that the claim of the claimants would be maintainable under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The quantum of compensation would depend on the extent of their dependency on the deceased - parent. Further, it was observed that the major sons though earning their livelihood still highly depending on their deceased mother and held that major sons even married sons are also entitled for compensation on the head of loss of dependency. Hence, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the contention of the learned

¶54

¶55

counsel appearing for the KSRTC that the major sons are not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency cannot be accepted.

¶56

As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2012. In the absence of documentary evidence, the notional income would be Rs.7,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 50 years. The relevant multiplier is '13'. Having considered the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and after adding 25% future prospects, the income comes to Rs.8,750/- per month and after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses, the

¶57

total income comes to Rs.5,833/- per month. By applying multiplier of '13', the loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,09,948/(5,833 x 12 x 13). In addition, the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each on the head of loss of love and affection apart from Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,22,948/-. However, after deducting Rs.50,000/- received

¶58

¶59

by the claimants as interim relief, the total compensation would come to Rs.9,72,948/- as against Rs.3,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶61

following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) MFA No.2805/2014 filed by the claimants is allowed in part.

¶64

(ii) MFA No.337/2014 filed by the KSRTC is dismissed.

¶65

(iii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 22.08.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.1492/2013, is modified granting compensation of Rs.9,72,948/- as against Rs.3,81,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶66

(iv) The KSRTC is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶67

(v) In all other respects, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

¶68

¶69

(vi) The amount in deposit in MFA No.337/2014, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶70

(vii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

PMR

The Managing Director v. B. Prabhuswamy @ Prabhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. B. Prabhuswamy @ Prabhu

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

Vimala @ Hemalatha Vs M.M.J.Somashekharappa

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. M. Sulochana

Legal Manager Vs Bherulal

The Divisional Controller Vs Puttaswamy

Mr. B.K.Ashraf Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company Vs Annapoornamma