Allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Siddaraju

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023MFA/8618/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Vehicles victim compensation appeal, setting aside the tribunal award of Rs.8,77,488/- by granting a revised compensation of Rs.6,85,300/- after assessing independent income evidence, adjusting age considerations, and examining liability apportionment.

What did the court decide?

The award reduced from Rs.8,77,488/ to Rs.6,85,300/-; KSRTC to pay Rs.5,33,240/- after deposit, owner/rider to pay Rs.1,37,060/-; deposit transmitted to Tribunal.

The Divisional Controller Vs Siddaraju — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8618 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, MANDYA, NOW BY THE CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE, K. H. ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SIDDARAJU,

¶12

S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHOBHA,

¶15

D/O LATE MADEGOWDA,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶17

BOTH RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, TAVAREGERE, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

¶18

MARISWAMY @ DEVEGOWDA, S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT KYATHAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHIKKARASINAKERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶21

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.447/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,77,488/- WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER FAILING WHICH INTEREST SHALL BE PAID AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This is an appeal filed by the KSRTC aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.447/2016 dated 16.07.2018 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya. The claim petition was filed by the daughter and son of the deceased seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.37,10,000/-.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶29

It is the case of the claimants that the deceased

¶30

was 53 years old and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/-

¶31

per month. According to the daughter, as she has deserted her husband, she was staying along with the father, who is the deceased and the son is also depending on them. As per the Aadhar card, which is filed by the claimant, the age of the deceased is 59 years and as per Post Mortem Report, his age is 53 years. No evidence was placed before the Court below with regard to the income, the Court below had taken an amount of Rs.8,000/- as the

¶32

income and by applying the multiplier of 11 and considering future prospects at 15%, by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, under the head of loss of dependency had granted an amount of Rs.8,62,488/-, under the head of funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- and traveling expenses Rs.5,000/-. Altogether, compensation of an amount of Rs.8,77,488/- was granted by the Tribunal.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶35

submits that when the Aadhar card shows that he is 59 years old, the Court below ought not to have taken the age of the deceased as 53 years. It is submitted that up to the age of 40 years, it is 14% future prospects and up to the age of 60 years, its 10% future prospects. The Court below had considered 15% as the future prospects which is on the higher side. It is submitted that the compensation that was granted by the Tribunal was on the higher side and without considering the evidence on record.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

¶37

the claimant submits that the Court below had rightly considered the evidence and as per the Post Mortem Report, he is 53 years old and the Court below had rightly taken the age. It is submitted that when it comes to the income, it is the case of the claimant that he was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month, the Court below had taken Rs.8,000/- as the income of the deceased. Learned

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶39

counsel submits that even as per the minimum wages of 2016, an amount of Rs.9,500/- ought to have been taken.

¶40

It is submitted that though there is no appeal filed by the claimant, when this Court considering the appeal of the KSRTC on the question of quantum, this Court comes to the conclusion that if the Court is satisfied, the amount that was granted by the Tribunal was not reasonable. Without there being an appeal the Court can enhance the compensation.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submits that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license and without any basis, the Court below had apportioned the negligence at 20% on the rider and owner of the vehicle. It is submitted that the said finding of the Court was not based on any material.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, as per the ration card, the claimant is 59 years and as per the Post Mortem Report, he is 53 years old. When there is a

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶45

ration card which is filed by the claimant and as it shows that he is 59 years old, the Court below ought to have considered 59 years as the age and this Court is inclined to take the age of the deceased as 59 years. As per the ration card filed by both the claimants, the son is residing in Bengaluru and the daughter is residing in Mandya in her husband's place. But as per her evidence, her husband had deserted her. As per the evidence of her brother, she is residing with her father. So these documents clearly show that the claimants are not dependent upon the deceased.

¶46

Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant, this Court is inclined to take Rs.9,500/as the income and 10% future prospects would come to Rs.950/- i.e. Rs.10,450/-, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, under the head of loss of dependency , it comes to Rs.5,225x12x9 = Rs.5,64,300/- . Towards consortium , 2x44 = Rs.88,000/- and towards funeral expenses an amount

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶48

of Rs.33,000/- is granted. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.6,85,300/- .

¶49

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶50

compensation under the following heads:

¶51

	Heads		C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of dependency	:	Rs.	5,64,300/-
2.	Consortium	:	Rs.	88,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	:	Rs.	33,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	6,85,300/-

¶52

When it comes to the contributory negligence, the

¶53

Court below has not fixed the contributory negligence on

¶54

the ground that he was not having a driving license. But, the contributory negligence is fixed as the rider of the vehicle was driving the same and while crossing the road, where there is no pedestrian crossing and the Court below basing on that, has come to the conclusion that he has contributed to the accident and fixed the contributory

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶56

negligence on the rider and owner of the vehicle at 20%.

¶57

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.

¶58

Accordingly, the appeal of the KSRTC is allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.8,77,488/to Rs.6,85,300/- setting aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.447/2016 dated 16.07.2018.

¶59

As it is submitted that the KSRTC has deposited

¶60

an amount of Rs.15,000/- which is undisputed, if the same is deducted KSRTC is liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,33,240/- and the owner and rider of the vehicle is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,37,060/-. If any excess amount is deposited by the KSRTC, they are at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶61

i. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶62

ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:42025 MFA No. 8618 of 2018

¶65

copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶66

iii. No costs.

¶67

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶68

SD/JUDGE

¶69

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 133 CT: BHK

The Divisional Controller v. Siddaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Siddaraju

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

Sri Pradeep G B Vs Byregowda

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr B Malathesha

Shamala Hari Vs a v Sudarshan

Mohammed Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Sanjeev Yane Sanjeev Pujar

H M Shivakumar Vs Ramachandra M