Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Imran Pasha

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2023MFA/235/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka thanked the Tribunal for passing an order but found the quantum of compensation low. The Court enhanced compensation by establishing negligence based on police evidence and awarding loss of dependency based on notional income for a homemaker, dismissing the carrier's appeal while partly allowing the claimants' appeal.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 8,95,315/- with 6% interest p.a. from date of petition.

The Managing Director Vs Imran Pasha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3073 OF 2021 (MV-D)

¶8

IN MFA NO.235/2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, BHEEMANNA GARDEN, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANKAR GOUD G., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. IMRAN PASHA, S/O LATE ASLAM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. AKRAM PASHA, S/O LATE ASLAM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. RUKSANA, D/O LATE ASLAM PASHA, W/O SAYED NAYAZ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶20

SMT. FAROOHA, D/O LATE ASLAM PASHA, W/O MUZAMIL PASHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶21

ALL ARE R/AT VENKATTAPPA BEEDHI, NEW MASJID MOHALLA, WARD NO.12, MAGADI, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 571 511.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.415/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-16), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 6,95,500/WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶25

IN MFA NO.3073/2021

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

IMRAN PASHA, S/O LATE. ASLAM PASHA, NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶28

AKRAM PASHA, S/O LATE. ASLAM PASHA, NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶31

RUKSANA, D/O LATE. ASLAM PASHA, W/O SAYED NAYAZ, NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶32

FAROOHA, D/O LATE. ASLAM PASHA, W/O MUZAMIL PASHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶33

ALL ARE R/AT VENKATTAPPA BEEDHI, NEW MASJID MOHALLA, WARD NO.12, MAGADI, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶34

…APPELLANTS

¶35

(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, BHEEMANNA GARDEN, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶38

…RESPONDENT

¶39

(BY SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANKAR GOUD G., ADVOCATE)

¶40

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.415/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶43

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

¶44

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

Heard learned counsel appearing for parties.

¶47

These appeals are by the KSRTC and the claimants arising out of the judgment and award dated 12.07.2019 passed in MVC No.415/2018 passed by the Learned X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.6,95,500/as compensation on account of death of their mother.

¶48

The case of the petitioners is that on 15.12.2017, at about 12.00 p.m., the deceased was travelling on the motor cycle bearing No.KA-02-X-2186 as a pillion rider and her son was riding the same. It was contended that while their motor cycle was proceeding on the left side of the road, near Maralagondala, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-42-F-1778, while making an attempt to overtake the motor cycle, came on the left side and touched the handle of the motor cycle, as a result the rider and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. They were shifted to Magadi Government Hospital and

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶50

¶51

thereafter, the deceased was shifted to NIMHANS where she succumbed to the injuries. The appellants contending that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, there is loss of dependency and as such preferred claim petition seeking compensation.

¶52

Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondentKSRTC appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objections. It was contended that there was no such negligence on the part of the bus driver, but on the other hand the rider of the motor cycle had driven the same negligently and he had tried to over take the bus from the left side and therefore the petition is not maintainable and the same be dismissed.

¶53

Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues and one witness was examined as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to P15 were marked. The driver of the respondent bus was examined as RW-1 and no documents were produced.

¶54

The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, proceeded to award compensation of Rs.6,95,415/-, under the following heads:

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶57

Sl.No.	Head of Compensation	Amount in (Rs.)
1	Loss of dependency	6,53,400-00
2	Loss of estate	15,000-00
3	Funeral and transportation expenses	15,000-00
4	Medical expenses	12,015-00
	Total	6,95,415-00
	Rounded off	6,95,500-00

¶58

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent is in appeal before this Court in MFA No.235/2020

¶59

and the claimants are before this Court in MFA No.3073/2021.

¶60

On issuance of notice, the rival parties have appeared through their counsel.

¶61

The Tribunal records have been secured and the arguments are heard.

¶62

Learned counsel appearing for KSRTC submits that

¶63

the Tribunal has not assessed the negligence in a proper way. It is contended that the rider of the motor cycle was trying to over take the bus from the left side and in such an attempt, the handle of the motor cycle touched the bus and he fell down on his own. It is contended that there was no such actionable negligence on the part of the bus driver as he had not tried to

¶64

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶65

over take the motor cycle. Apart from that the learned counsel for the appellant-KSRTC also contends that the quantum of the compensation determined by the Tribunal is also erroneous and the appellants who are the sons and daughters are well settled and therefore, they were not dependents on the deceased.

¶66

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low, meager and it over looks the role of an elderly person in the family. He contends that the Tribunal has not awarded an adequate and just compensation to the appellants. He submits that the Tribunal has rightly taken the personal expenses of the deceased at 50% considering the fact that the appellants are major and therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the KSRTC in this regard is not sustainable in law.

¶67

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the first aspect to be considered by this Court is in respect of the negligence. The perusal of the evidence discloses that the PW-1-Imran Pasha is not an eye witness to the accident. Therefore, it is evident that the appellants rely upon the police

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶69

¶70

papers in order to establish that there was negligence on the part of KSRTC bus driver. Perusal of FIR and charge sheet which are produced at Ex.P1 and Ex.P4, discloses that the police have investigated the matter and ultimately filed charge sheet alleging that the bus driver had tried to over take the motor cycle and he abruptly took his vehicle to the left side in a curve resulting the motor cycle which was on its left, touching the left side of the body of the bus and as a result, the motor cycle rider fell down along with the pillion rider resulting in the accident. The police have also alleged that the bus driver had not stopped the bus after the accident. The sketch produced by the petitioners at Ex.P8 and the spot mahazar produced at Ex.P5, shows that the bus was on the right side of the motor cycle and the IMV report shows that the handle bar of the motor cycle had sustained damages. No damages were found on the bus. In the cross examination of PW1, the PW1 has denied that the rider of the motor cycle was over taking the bus from the left side.

¶71

The perusal of the evidence of RW1 who is the driver of the bus, shows that he has tried to say that the motor cycle rider was over taking the bus from the left side. He has

¶72

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶73

stated in his examination-in-chief that the motor cycle rider made attempts to over take the bus from the left side and while over taking the bus, the left handle of the motor cycle dashed against the right side of the body of the bus causing the accident. This say of RW1 is totally contrary to the contention taken up by him. If the motor cycle was over-taking the bus from the left side, the question of the right side of body of the bus coming in contact with the motor cycle does not arise. Under these circumstances, it appears that the investigation made by the police is more acceptable and preponderance of probability is that, in fact that the bus driver had tried to overtake the motor cycle and it was due to his negligence that the accident had occurred. The contention of the respondentKSRTC has not been probabalised by any acceptable evidence.

¶74

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased Noor Jan was aged about 51 years as on date of the accident. The petitioners are the sons and daughters of the deceased and they are majors and are well settled. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding the personal expenses of the deceased at 50%.

¶75

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶76

There is no evidence regarding the income of the

¶77

deceased. It is quite natural that the deceased who was the mother of the appellants, was aged 51 years and obviously she was the guiding light for the petitioners in their life. It is not necessary that all the home makers are to be earning to hold that there was an acceptable material to show the income. In a catena of decisions, the Judicial pronouncements hold that the role of home maker is equally important and therefore, the notional income has to be considered while assessing the compensation. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority prescribe a notional income of Rs.11,000/- per month for the accident of year 2017. In umpteen number of decisions it was held that the guidelines issued by the Courts are in general conformity with wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, they are acceptable. Under these circumstances the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶78

By adding 10% of the income to the future

¶79

prospects, the monthly income would have to be taken at Rs.12000/- per month. By taking the multiplier '11', for the age

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶81

11 -

¶82

of 51 year, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.12,100X12X11X50%)= Rs.7,98,600/-.

¶83

So far as, loss of consortium or filial, love and affection, loss of estate, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses are concerned, the decision in the case of

¶84

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -Vs- PRANAY SETHI

¶85

AND OTHERS , has to be followed and therefore, a sum of Rs.48,400/-, Rs.18,150/-, Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the said heads.

¶86

The appellants have produced the bills of medical expenses which account for Rs.12,015/- and the same is awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the total compensation is

¶87

calculated as below:

¶88

Sl.No.	Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
1	Loss of dependency	7,98,600-00
2	Loss of consortium or filial,love and affection	48,400-00
3	Funeral and transportation expenses	18,150-00
4	Loss of estate	18,150-00
5	Medical expenses	12,015-00
	Total	8,95,315-00
	Less Granted byTribunal	6,95,500-00
	Enhancement	1,99,815-00

¶89

12 -

¶90

NC: 2023:KHC:24384 MFA No. 235 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3073 of 2021

¶91

19. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants

¶92

deserves to be allowed in part. The appeal filed by the KSRTC is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶93

ORDER

¶94

MFA No.235/2020 is hereby dismissed .

¶95

MFA No.3073/2021 is allowed in part .

¶96

The claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,99,815/- along with 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till its realization before the Tribunal.

¶97

The amount which is in deposit before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶98

Conditions in respect of the apportionment and Fixed deposit remain unaltered.

¶99

Sd/JUDGE

¶100

¶101

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78 CT:STK

The Managing Director v. Imran Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Imran Pasha

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

Chipili Krishna B M Vs State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs Smt.Sumithra

Dhruvakumar Vs Raghu

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Raghu Kumar D M

Abdul Hameed S/O Abdul Gani Vs Mehaboobsab and Ors.

Mr. v Nagaraj Vs Mr. Dinesh Koushik