Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Jayaram

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024MFA/1189/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals by KSRTC and claimants against a motor accident compensation award for a moped rider killed by a KSRTC bus. The High Court rejected the contributory negligence plea for want of evidence, recomputed dependency using Rs.9,500 notional income with 25% future prospects, one-third deduction and multiplier 13, and enhanced compensation to Rs.15,21,052.

What did the court decide?

KSRTC appeal dismissed; claimants' appeal partly allowed; compensation enhanced from Rs.12,02,500 to Rs.15,21,052 with 6% interest on enhanced amount, payable within eight weeks without security.

The Divisional Controller Vs Jayaram — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1189 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2595 OF 2017 (MV-D) IN MFA NO. 1189/2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OFFICE, KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALORE DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H.DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A. SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

JAYARAM, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NAGAYANNA KOPPALU VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELOGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.

¶17

1a. SUSHEELA @ SUSHEELAMMA, W/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶18

SRI. LOKESH, S/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED 33 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶20

SRI. KIRAN, S/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED 31 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. BABU, S/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED 29 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. SUSHEELA D/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NAGAYANNA KOPPALU VILLAGE, SHRAVANAGELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.337/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 12,02,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 2595/2017

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

JAYARAM, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NAGAYANNAKOPPALU VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.

¶29

SMT. SUSHEELA, W/O LATE JAYARAM,

¶30

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶31

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶32

SRI. LOKESH, S/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED 33 YEARS,

¶33

SRI. KIRAN, S/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED 31 YEARS,

¶34

SRI. BABU, S/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED 29 YEARS,

¶35

SMT. SUSHEELA D/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶36

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NAGAYANNA KOPPALU VILLAGE, SHRAVANAGELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 34.

¶37

…APPELLANTS

¶38

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶39

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OFFICE, KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALORE DIVISION, CHIKAMAGALORE DISTRICT - 56.

¶40

…RESPONDENT

¶41

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶42

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.337/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENASTION.

¶43

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

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.337/2016 dated 24.11.2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chanarayapatna, both the KSRTC and the claimants are before this Court. KSRTC's appeal is MFA No.1189/2017 and the claimants' appeal is MFA No.2595/2017.

¶47

The claimants are the wife and sons of the

¶48

deceased and they are aged about 49 years, 33 years, 31 years, 29 years and 27 years old respectively. It is the case of the claimants that on 04.01.2016 at about 2.05 pm, the deceased had finished his work and was returning to his village on his TVS Moped bearing Reg.No.KA-13-EE-5147 and when he was waiting near Makan Cross to proceed towards Shravanagelagola by giving signal, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18-F-803 has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the moped. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was

¶49

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶50

doing supervisory work, animal husbandry and agricultural work and earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is stated by the son of the deceased that his father was 54 years old at the time of his death. The Court below considering the post mortem report, considered the age of the deceased was 50 years and the income was taken at Rs.7,500/- per month. The Court below by deducting 1/4^th had granted the compensation as per the table given below:

¶51

Heads		C	ompensation Awarded
Funeral Expenses	:	Rs.	25,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection	:	Rs.	1,00,000/-
Loss of Estate	:	Rs.	1,00,000/-
Loss of Consortium	:	Rs.	1,00,000/-
Loss of dependency	:	Rs.	8,77,500/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	12,02,500/-

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

¶53

KSRTC submits that the deceased was not having a driving

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶55

license and because of the negligence on the part of the deceased, the accident had taken place. The Court below failed to consider the contributory negligence. It is submitted that on the compensation, the income that is taken by the Court below without there being evidence is on the higher side. It is further submitted that all the sons

¶56

are major sons and they are not dependants on the deceased and the Court below ought not to have deducted 1/4^th of the personal income of the deceased and ought to have deducted 1/3^rd of the personal income of the deceased. It is submitted that the compensation that has been awarded by the Court below is on the higher side.

¶57

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that according to the claimants, the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. But the Court below had taken the income at Rs.7,500/- per month. As the accident is of the year 2016, the said amount is on lower side. It is further submitted that the Court below on the other conventional heads also granted

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶59

the compensation which is on the lower side. He submits that altogether the compensation that is granted by the Court below is not just and reasonable compensation.

¶60

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The first issue is with regard to the contributory negligence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-KSRTC with regard to the contributory negligence is that the deceased do not have valid driving license and the second is that he contributed to the accident.

¶61

It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was going on the moped, he stopped to take turn and at that time, the KSRTC came and hit the moped. The oral evidence as well as the police records are in the same lines. If it is the case of the KSRTC, there is a contributory negligence, on the deceased, then the burden lies on them to prove by adducing evidence. But in this case, no such evidence is adduced by the KSRTC. In that view of the matter, this Court is not able to appreciate the contention

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶63

of the KSRTC with regard to the contributory negligence and the Court below had rightly held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC.

¶64

Coming to the compensation, it is the case of the appellant-KSRTC that when the son of the deceased has stated that the deceased was aged 54 years old at the time of his death, the Court below ought not to have taken 55 years as the age. Further, when the sons all are major sons, 1/4^th of the income should not have been deducted. First, coming to the contention with regard to the age, as per the oral evidence of the son, the deceased was 54 years old but post mortem reports shows that he is 50 years old and the Court below had rightly taken 50 years of the age. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 in the case of Sarla

¶65

verma case Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

¶66

another. The multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is '13'. With regard to the dependants sons, this Court

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶68

has seen that among the children of the deceased, the 5^th appellant is a unmarried daughter. The 5^th appellant and 1^st appellant-wife, the two are entitled and fourth claimant is 28 years old and others are about 30 and 32 years old respectively. In view of the same, this Court inclined to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased. As the deceased was aged 50 years, he is entitled for 25% of future prospectus and when it comes to the income, though there is no evidence in this regard, considering the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, as this accident is of the year 2016, this Court is considering the income at Rs.9,500/- per month. 25% future prospectus comes to Rs.2,375/- that is Rs.11,875/-(Rs.9,500/-+Rs.2,375/-). 1/3^rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses, then, it comes to an amount of Rs.3,958/-. If the same is deducted, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be an amount of Rs.7,917/-. The multiplier applicable is '13', under the head

¶69

loss of dependency , it comes t o Rs.12,35,052/( Rs.7,917x12x13). en it comes to consortium, the wife and three sons and a daughter, they are entitled for consortium at

¶70

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶71

48,000x5=2,40,000/-. Towards, funeral expenses,

¶72

Rs.36,000/- is granted.

¶73

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶74

Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI

¶75

AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses . Altogether, the

¶76

claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.15,21,052/- .

¶77

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads:

¶78

Sl. No	Compensation Head	Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court(`)
1	Funeral Expenses	25,000/-	36,000/-
2	Loss of Love and Affection	1,00,000/-	-
3	Loss of Estate	1,00,000/-	-
4	Loss of Consortium	1,00,000/-	2,40,000/-
5	Loss of dependency	8,77,500/-	12,35,052/-
6	Legal expenses	-	10,000/-
	Total	12,02,500	15,21,052 /-

¶79

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶82

Accordingly, the appeal of the KSRTC i.e., MFA No.1189/2017 is dismissed and the appeal of the claimants i.e., MFA No.2595/2017 is allowed-in-part , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.12,02,500/- to an amount of Rs.15,21,052/- setting aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.337/2016 dated 24.11.2016.

¶83

i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The amount in deposit by the KSRTC shall be transferred to the Court below.

¶84

ii. The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶85

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:9444 MFA No. 1189 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 2595 of 2017

¶86

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶87

iv. No costs.

¶88

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶89

SD/JUDGE

¶90

JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK

The Divisional Controller v. Jayaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Jayaram

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

Bhavya Mohan Vs Abhinav Shrivastava

Smt. Ramya T v Vs Sru Koushik Rajaram @ Koushik R Nijagal

G Somashekar Vs G Harish

Ms Pallavi K B Vs Mr Balaso Mahadev Babar

Sri. Chandra Reddy. R Vs Sri. v. Veluswamy

Reliance General Insurance Vs Prajwal. M