The High Court of Karnataka disposed of two murder appeals filed by the APSRTC and claimants against a Claims Tribunal award of Rs.11 lakhs. The Court found the bus driver negligent, increased the notional income, and enhanced total compensation to Rs.16.89 lakhs.
Compensation enhanced from Rs.11,41,000 to Rs.16,89,400 with interest at 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2022 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7550 OF 2018(MV)
IN MFA 122/2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka
APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER SMT. MANGAMMA ALL ARE R/AT NEAR NOORI NURSING OF COLLEGE GOONIMAKANAHALLI, KGF TOWN, KGF
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)
NC: 2023:KHC:40886 MFA No. 122 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7550 of 2018
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH 500 020.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA 7550/2018
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC MUSHEERABAD REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER ANANTHAPURAM ANDHRA PRADESH 515001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER SMT. MANGAMMA R1 ALL ARE R/AT NEAR NOORI NURSING COLLEGE GOONIMAKANAHALLI KGF TOWN, KGF-563113.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, KGF. AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,41,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
and MFA No.122/2022 has been filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.03.2018
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, KGF in MVC No.04/2016.
through counsel and filed written statement in which the
averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the Corporation as well as by the claimants.
a) Firstly, the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself. He suddenly entered the main road without following any traffic rules and hence the accident was occurred. The Corporation has examined the
driver of the offending vehicle as RW-1 and he has categorically stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and he has also categorically deposed that inspite of driver of the Bus lodged the complaint, the Police refused to register the same. The Tribunal only on the basis of the Police records, has held that the driver of the Bus was negligent in causing the accident. This finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the material available on record.
b) Secondly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents and notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal Rs.5,000/- is on higher side.
c) Thirdly, since the claimants have not established the
income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.
d) Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimants by allowing the appeal filed by the Corporation.
claimants has raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus. The claimant
No.1 has been examined herself as PW-1. In her evidence,
she has categorically stated that the accident occurred due
to negligence of driver of the Bus, but in the crossexamination, nothing worthwhile information has been elicited by the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the complaint and charge sheet filed against the driver of the Bus, has rightly held that the driver of the Bus alone was negligent in causing the accident.
b) Secondly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working as Mason. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.5,000/-.
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the
deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered.
d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
REG: NEGLIGENCE:
about 04.00 p.m., the deceased Muniraju was returning from Palamner in his TVS Star Sport Motorcycle near Basavaraju Kandriga Village on Palamner-Punganur Road, at that time, the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing
Registration No.AP-28-Z-5554 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. To prove the case, claimant No.1 has examined herself as PW-1. In her evidence, she has reiterated the statement made in the claim petition and she has produced 7 documents.
strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. In the case of MANGLA RAM –v- ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2018) 5 SCC 656 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:
“25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant’s eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.”
report as per Ex.P3, Post Mortem report as per Ex.P4, and
charge sheet as per Ex.P5. Immediately after the accident, the complaint has been lodged against the driver of the Bus. The Police have registered an FIR against him. After thorough investigation, they have filed charge sheet against the driver of the Bus. Even the respondent has cross-examined PW-1 and they have not elicited any worthwhile information. Even RW-1 Conductor of the Bus has been examined and he has categorically stated that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident. Even though he has stated that he has lodged the complaint against the deceased, the Police have refused to lodge the complaint. But he has not produced any such copy. The respondent except examining the driver of the Bus as RW-1 as witness, they have not produced any document to disprove the case of the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW-1 and Inquest report, complaint and charge sheet has rightly held that the driver of the Bus alone was negligent in causing the accident and the Tribunal has not committed
any error in the judgment and has rightly answered issue No.1 in the affirmative.
REG: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.14,99,400/(Rs.7,3501217) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.
15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
| Compensation under different Heads |
Amount in (Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | 14,99,400 |
| Funeral expenses | 15,000 |
| Loss of estate | 15,000 |
| Loss of spousal consortium |
40,000 |
| Loss of Parental consortium |
40,000 |
| Loss of Filial consortium | 80,000 |
| Total | 16,89,400 |
ORDER
Rs.16,89,400/- as against Rs.11,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) The Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
e) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal.
f) In view of the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 603 days in filing the appeal filed by the claimants.
Sd/JUDGE
HA
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 46
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in finding the bus driver negligent causing the death of the deceased.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate considering the age and prospects of the deceased.
Whether the compensation should be enhanced to cover loss of dependency and consortium for claimants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and OthersExplained¶71
AIR 2017 SC 5157 · Who else cites this
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. – v. Nanu RamApplied¶74
[2018 ACJ 2782]
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company LimitedApplied¶85
(2018) 5 SCC 656 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Mangamma W/o Late Muni Raju
Sri K Gangappa S/o Late Lakshmiah
The Managing Director APSRTC Musheerabad
H.T. Nandkumar Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
