Partly allowed

Divisional Controller Ksrtc v. Thimmegowda

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2022MFA/552/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award regarding negligence and compensation. The court affirmed the driver's negligence despite a minor FIR delay, reversed the compensation calculation, and allotted enhanced damages with interest to the deceased's family.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the Corporation's appeal and Allowed in part the claimant's appeal, enhancing compensation to Rs.18,91,000 with 6% per annum interest.

Divisional Controller Ksrtc Vs Thimmegowda — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.552 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.8276 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶8

IN M.F.A.No.552/2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., HASSAN, BY CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHIGRAM, BENGALURU - 560 027. REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR S., ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI.THIMMEGOWDA, S/O LATE MUDLIGIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. SAROJA, W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶16

¶17

KASABA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 30.08.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1593/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,87,732/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TO THAT OF DEPOSIT WITHIN 2 MONTHS FROM THIS DAY AND ON FAILURE TO DO SO, IT SHALL CARRY INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A,.

¶21

IN M.F.A.No.8276/2019

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SHRI. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O LATE MUDLIGIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BUDANURU VILLAGE,

¶24

SMT. SAROJA, W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶25

BOTH ARE R/AT CHOLANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKALGUD, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶26

… APPELLANTS

¶27

(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)

¶28

¶29

AND:

¶30

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OFFICER, KSRTC, HASSAN.

¶31

… RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR S., ADV.,)

¶33

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1593/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶34

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶36

MFA No.552/2020 is by the Corporation challenging the finding of the Tribunal that for the accident occurred, the driver of the KSRTC bus was responsible.

¶37

MFA No.8276/2018 is by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶38

¶39

It is the case of the Corporation that there was no accident involving its bus and the case was concocted.

¶40

It was the case of the claimant that the deceased was riding his motor cycle and the KSRTC bus collided with him head on, as a result of which, the rider of the two wheeler suffered grievous injuries to which he ultimately succumbed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the Corporation sought to

¶42

contend that there was a delay of one day in filing the complaint and therefore, it was a case of implication of the motor vehicle.

¶43

It is to be stated here that having regard to the fact that the rider of the two wheeler died on the spot, this delay of one day in filing the FIR would really be irrelevant, since, it would be obvious that the family members of the deceased would be in a state of shock

¶44

¶45

and would only be trying to ensure that the last rites are conducted. In such a situation, they cannot really be expected to be running to the police station to lodge a complaint.

¶46

It is also not in dispute that the KSRTC bus itself paid the interim compensation ie., Ex Gratia payment of Rs.50,000/- to the parents of the deceased. This singular factor, by itself, is sufficient to establish that an accident did occur and the negligence attributable to it was only on the KSRTC bus.

¶47

It may be also pertinent to state here that on a consideration of the IMV report, in which the damage to the motor cycle as well as to the KSRTC bus has been recorded, and the occurrence of the accident as per indicated in the sketch, it is clear that the KSRTC driver was negligent and was the cause for the accident. The finding of the Tribunal therefore is

¶48

¶49

required to be affirmed as regards the occurrence of the accident and the attribution of negligence.

¶50

As far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income at Rs.7,000/- and after deducting 1/3^rd of the said income, it has proceeded to award the following sums:

¶51

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	13,32,732
2.	Funeral expenses	15,000
3.	Love and affection	15,000
4.	Loss of estate, obsequies ceremonies	40,000
	TOTAL	14,02,732
	Less interim compensation already paid	15,000
	Total	13,87,732

¶52

Learned counsel for the claimant contends that

¶53

the accident is of the year 2018 and therefore, the notional income determined by the KSLSA requires to

¶54

be adopted.

¶55

¶56

Since there was no documentary evidence, the income assessed by the KSLSA, for the accident of the year 2018, i.e., Rs.12,500/- will have to be adopted.

¶57

He also submitted that having regard to the age of the deceased, 40% of the income would have to be added towards 'future prospects' and a multiplier of '17' would have to be adopted.

¶58

Since the claimant was a bachelor, 50% of the income would have to be deducted from his monthly salary and consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of [(Rs.12,500/2) + 40%] = Rs.8,750 x 12 x 17 = Rs.17,85,000/- .

¶59

Further in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

¶60

reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants being the father and mother of the deceased, would each be

¶61

¶62

entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/-, under the head ‘loss of consortium’ which comes to (Rs.44,000 x 2) = Rs.88,000/- , apart from a sum of Rs.33,000/- under the ‘conventional head’ .

¶63

Consequently the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶64

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	17,85,000
2.	Loss of consortium	88,000
3.	Conventional head	33,000
	TOTAL	19,06,000
	Less interim compensation already paid	15,000
	TOTAL	18,91,000

¶65

Thus, the appeal filed by the KSRTC is dismissed insofar as it relates to negligence and occurrence of the accident and is allowed in part (in the light of deduction and payment of interest).

¶66

¶67

The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part . The claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of (Rs.18,91,000 - Rs.13,87,732) = Rs.5,03,268/- .

¶68

The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶69

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶70

The amount in deposit shall be transferred to

¶71

MACT for disbursal in terms of the award.

¶72

SD/JUDGE

¶73

Divisional Controller Ksrtc v. Thimmegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Controller Ksrtc v. Thimmegowda

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

Sri.Wilson.T Vs Mrs.Vimala Rai

Sri Manjunatha Vs Ashoka

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kallesha N

Miss Nisarga v Vs the Managing Director

The Lakshmi Narasimha Devaru Vs D Poovappa Poojary

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Jayalakshmamma