Disposed

The Managing Director B.M.T.C. v. Sri B v Nithinkumar

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2023MFA/5119/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal by BMTC appealed a motor accident judgment awarding compensation to the heirs of a deceased pedestrian. The High Court found no merit in the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's assessment of quantum and negligence against the bus driver, dismissing the challenge based on contributory negligence claims or excessive compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's judgment and award of compensation are confirmed.

The Managing Director B.M.T.C. Vs Sri B v Nithinkumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5119 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C., K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI B V NITHINKUMAR, S/O B.VISHWANATHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 256A,

¶14

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

¶15

BILLIGERI VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERE TALUK, KODAGU - 571 201. (DECEASED HUSBAND)

¶16

SMT. BHAVANI B J, W/O. LATE JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 108, AVEREGUNDA VILLAGE, KARADIGUDU POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU-571 253.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶19

(DECEASED MOTHER)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI SURESH CHOTTEYANDA S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2649/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IX C/C XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU SCCH-15 AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.25,29,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TO TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN THE COURT.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

By consent of both the parties, the matter is taken

¶26

up for final disposal, though it is slated for Admission and heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶27

This appeal by the respondent-BMTC is directed

¶28

against the judgment and award in MVC No.2649/2020 by the learned IX and C/C XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru, SCCH-15, whereby a sum of Rs.25,29,200/-

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶31

was awarded to the petitioners on account of the death of

¶32

one B.J.Nalani Kumari in the road traffic accident.

¶33

The facts leading to this appeal are as below:

¶34

The petitioners who are the respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶35

in the appeal contended before the Tribunal that deceased

¶36

Nalani Kumari was a pedestrian crossing the road between two buses bearing No.KA.57-F-4066 and KA-57-F1-5978 towards Ganesha Temple to VVI Road BMTC bus stop, K.R. Road, Bengaluru, on 7-3-2020 at 4.40 p.m. It was contended that the driver of the BMTC bus bearing No.KA.57-F-4066 suddenly drove the same in the reverse

¶37

direction and dashed to the deceased Nalani Kumari. As a result, she fell down and sustained injuries to the head. She was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru and she was inpatient for a period of 14 days and ultimately, she succumbed to the injuries on 21-3-2020. It was contended that the petitioners are the husband and mother of the deceased Nalani Kumari. They contended that deceased was aged about 23 years working at Vani Vilas hospital as

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶39

an Accountant on Contract Basis earning Rs.15,000/- per month and due to her death, the petitioners have lost the earning member of the family and therefore, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation from the respondent-BMTC.

¶40

When the notice of the petition was issued to respondent -BMTC, it had appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement contending that the driver of the bus was vigilant and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was contended that the deceased was trying to cross the road without looking to the vehicles in a hurry and there is negligence on the part of the deceased.

¶41

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues and petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. The driver of BMTC bus was examined as RW1.

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶43

After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire evidence, the Tribunal has awarded the

¶44

compensation under the following heads:

¶45

Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 24,19,200/-
Towards consortium	Rs. 80,000/-
Towards Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Towards funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL	Rs. 25,29,200/-

¶46

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award,

¶47

respondent -BMTC has approached this Court in appeal on various grounds.

¶48

On issuance of notice, respondents/ petitioners have appeared through their counsel.

¶49

The learned counsel for appellant-BMTC submits

¶50

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, speculative and not sustainable in law. The main contention of the appellant is that, there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and she was trying to cross the road without looking to the vehicles on the road.

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - petitioners submits that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record and it has come to the right conclusion in the matter. He has submitted that the spot of the accident as well as the evidence of the driver of the bus clearly establish that there was no such negligence on the part of the deceased who was trying to cross the road. He also submits that the compensation awarded is based on the documentary evidence which is available and therefore, no interference is required in the matter.

¶53

The perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that in Para 11 of the judgment, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of RW1. It is noticed that in the cross- examination, RW1 had admitted that the police had filed the chargesheet against him and that he was on duty and driving the said bus. He had also admitted that due to his negligence, the accident took place and also that the police had recorded his statement. However, he had denied that there was sufficient place in between his bus

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶55

and the another bus so that the pedestrian could cross the road.

¶56

A perusal of these aspects would show that the

¶57

accident happened on busy K.R. road and had happened near the bus stop. It is evident that K.R. Road is just in front of the Victoria Hospital, where several buses stop and there are several bus stops. Thus, it is evident that whenever the bus drivers drive the vehicle, they have to be cautious to the utmost extent. When such evidence is available on record, it is clear that the negligence was on

¶58

the part of the bus driver only. Obviously, the deceased was crossing the road as it was a bus stop. When there are several buses which are plying on the road, the duty of the drivers of the vehicle increases many fold. Under these circumstances, while taking the bus in reverse, the driver of the bus would have taken the help of the conductor who was present, but no such evidence is available on record. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the views taken by the tribunal in fastening negligence on the part of the driver of the bus

¶59

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶60

alone. There cannot be any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

¶61

So far as quantum of compensation amount is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the available evidence. It has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month which is based on the pay slips which are at Ex.P10. She was earning a salary of Rs.12,056/- P.M. by working at Vani Vilas Hospital as contended. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Tribunal in holding that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month.

¶62

The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, no fault can be found with the same. Ultimately, the Tribunal holds that the future prospects are also to be considered and has added 40% of the income and has come to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.24,19,200/- towards loss of dependency. The method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be disputed. It is pertinent

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶65

to note that the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- under the head of 'consortium or filial love and affection' and Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.

¶66

It is relevant to note that the views taken by the

¶67

Tribunal cannot be interfered with only because an alternate proposition is permissible The Tribunal had the advantage of looking to the witnesses and appreciate their demeanor and come to the appropriate conclusion. The Appellate Court can interfere with the matter only if it is shown that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal are perverse and capricious in nature. The principles laid down in the various decisions show that merely because another proposition and construction of the result is permissible, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Courts. Under these circumstances, I find that the compensation awarded by

¶68

the Tribunal under different heads is just, reasonable and proper. No interference is required in the same. No other

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:24898 MFA No. 5119 of 2022

¶71

grounds are urged at the hearing of the appeal. As a result

¶72

the appeal is bereft of merits. Hence, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(i) The appeal filed by the appellant -BMTC is

¶75

dismissed.

¶76

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2649/2020 on 18-4-2022 is confirmed.

¶77

(iii) The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶78

In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, IA No.1/2023 filed by the appellant does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed of.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

tsn*

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

The Managing Director B.M.T.C. v. Sri B v Nithinkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director B.M.T.C. v. Sri B v Nithinkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. v Nagaraj Vs Mr. Dinesh Koushik

Sri Ramesh M S Vs Sri Papegowda

Sri Prasanna Vs Boregowda

Smt.Mangamma Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited

Sri. S. Ravindrakumar Vs Sri. K. Parameshwara Reddy

Mahalingamma Vs Siddaramaiah