Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road v. Chikkalingamma

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024MFA/1681/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed appeals by KSRTC challenging the attribution of 75% negligence to its driver, holding the driver solely responsible. The court partially allowed the claimants' appeal, modifying the compensation calculation by applying future prospects and standard multipliers, resulting in a slightly higher total award but reducing the interest rate to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Appeals by KSRTC dismissed; Claimants' appeal allowed in part; Compensation enhanced to Rs.15,11,556/- with 6% interest.

Karnataka State Road Vs Chikkalingamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1681 OF 2019

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2715 OF 2018

¶10

(MV-D)

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3202 OF 2018

¶12

(MV-D)

¶13

IN MFA No. 1681/2019:

¶14

BETWEEN:

¶15

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MANDYA DIVISION, MADNYA DEPOT, MYSORE BENGALURU ROAD, OPPOSITE TO KEB, I FLOOR KSRTC BUS STAND, LMANDYA BY ITS DIVSIIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶17

…APPELLANT

¶18

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

CHIKKALINGAMMA W/O BHOOMI SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O RAMANATHA MOLE VILLAGE KIRUGAVALU HOBLI,

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶22

MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 430.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28/12/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1360/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MALAVALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,330/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 2715/2018:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MANDYA DIVISION MANDYA DEPOT MYSORE BENGALURU ROAD, OPPOSITE TO KEB MANDYA CITY, MANDYA DISTRICT BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

PUTTAGOWRAMMA

¶33

W/O LATE NAGARAJU @

¶34

NAGAPPA KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶35

SUSHMITHA MINOR

¶36

D/O LATE NAGARAJU @ NAGAPPA KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS

¶37

PRATHEEKSHA MINOR

¶38

D/O LATE NAGARAJU @ NAGAPPA KARIYAPPA AGED

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶41

ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶42

R-2 AND R-3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN R-1 PUTTAGOWRAMMA

¶43

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MIKKERE VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT -571430

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. M.Y.SREENIVASAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶46

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18/11/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1453/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MALAVALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,97,500/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT 9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶47

IN MFA NO. 3202/2018:

¶48

BETWEEN:

¶49

PUTTAGOWRAMMA

¶50

W/O LATE NAGARAJU @ NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶51

2. SUSHMITHA

¶52

D/O LATE NAGARAJU @ NAWGAPPA

¶53

AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶54

PRATHEEKSHA D/O LATE NAGARAJU @ NAWGAPPA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,

¶55

APPELLANT No.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER A-1 PUTTAGOWRAMMA

¶56

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶57

ALL ARE R/O MIKKERE VILLAGE MALAVALLI TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 425.

¶58

...APPELLANTS

¶59

(BY SRI. M.Y.SREENIVASAN., ADVOCATE)

¶60

AND:

¶61

DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSRTC, MANDYA DEPOT MYSORE BENGALURU ROAD, OPP TO KEB MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

¶62

...RESPONDENT

¶63

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶64

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18/11/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1453/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MALAVALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶65

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶66

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶67

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶68

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) as well as the claimants in MVC `No.1453/2016 are in appeal.

¶69

The KSRTC has filed MFA Nos.2715/2018 and 1681/2019 challenging the liability and quantum of

¶70

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶71

compensation awarded in MVC No.1453/2016 and the liability to pay compensation in MVC No.1360/2017, awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that apportionment of 75% negligence on the driver of the KSRTC bus is erroneous and the compensation and interest awarded at 9% per annum is excessive.

¶72

The claimants in MVC No.1453/2016 are in appeal (MFA No.3202/2018) being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as attribution of 25% contributory negligence on the deceased rider of the motor-cycle.

¶73

It is not in dispute that as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.09.2016, one Nagaraju (42 year old), husband of claimant No.1 in MVC No.1453 of 2016, died and the pillion rider—claimant in MVC No.1360 of 2017 sustained injuries.

¶74

The KSRTC contends that the evidence on record clearly indicated that the accident occurred solely due

¶75

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶76

to the negligence of the rider of the motor-cycle. It is argued that the motor-cycle which collided with the bus was carrying in all four passengers and therefore, entire negligence would have to be attributed against the rider of the motor-cycle and the entire apportionment of negligence should be on the motorcycle and its rider.

¶77

On the other hand, the claimants contend that the motor-cycle was being ridden not with four adults, but with only two adults and two children and therefore, the negligence cannot be attributed to the rider of the motor-cycle on this score.

¶78

Reliance is sought to be placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Siddique¹ wherein it has been held that mere carrying two pillion riders would not tantamount to negligence on the part of the rider of the motor-cycle.

¶79

1 Mohammed Siddique vs National Insurance Company Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57

¶80

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶81

A perusal of the evidence adduced would make it clear that there is no positive evidence indicating that just because the motor-cycle was carrying two children and an adult pillion rider, that was the reason for the accident.

¶82

It is also not in dispute that the Police after investigation have laid a charge-sheet against the driver of the KSRTC bus. It is therefore obvious that the negligence could only be attributed to the driver of the KSRTC bus.

¶83

It is also noticed that the driver of the KSRTC bus sits on a vantage position and would have a clear view of the entire road and the probability of him being surprised or not noticing an on-coming vehicle would be remote.

¶84

I am therefore of the view that the finding of the Tribunal attributing 25% negligence on the rider of the motor-cycle cannot be sustained and the argument

¶85

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶86

of the KSRTC that the entire negligence should be on the part of the rider of the motor-cycle cannot also be accepted. It is, therefore, held that the driver of the KSRTC bus alone was responsible for the accident. The appeals filed by KSRTC in MFA No.2715 of 2018

¶87

and MFA No.1681 of 2019 are accordingly dismissed .

¶88

IN MFA Nos.3202 of 2018 : (MVC No.1453/2016):

¶89

As far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal,

¶90

on assessment of the evidence adduced before it, has

¶91

awarded the following sums as compensation:

¶92

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency (Rs.80,000/- x 14)	11,20,000/-
2.	Loss of love and affection	2,00,000/-
3.	Transportation charges	5,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses	25,000/-
	Total	13,50,000/-

¶93

While awarding the said compensation, the Tribunal

¶94

has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, since there was no proof of

¶95

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶97

actual income and to the said income, future prospects have also not been added.

¶98

The deceased was aged 42 years as on the date of accident. In cases where there is no evidence to determine the actual income, it is appropriate to adopt

¶99

the notional income as assessed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which for the year

¶100

2016 would be Rs.9,500/- .

¶101

As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay

¶102

Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680 , as the deceased was aged about 42 years, 25% of the same

¶103

(Rs.2,375/-) is required to be added to the said income

¶104

as future prospects and the resultant income would be Rs.11,875/-.

¶105

Out of the said sum, 1/3^rd (Rs.3,958/-) would have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the

¶106

deceased. The net income will be Rs.7,917/-.

¶107

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶108

As the deceased was aged 42 years, as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶109

case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of ' 14 ’ would have to be applied.

¶110

Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.13,30,056/- (Rs.7,917/ - x 12 x '14') towards “ loss of dependency” .

¶111

The claimants, being the wife and two children, would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.1,45,200/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads” .

¶112

Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums :

¶113

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency (Rs.7,917/ - x 12 x '14')	13,30,056/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	1,45,200/-

¶114

11 -

¶115

NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶116

3.	Conventional Heads	36,300/-
	Total	15,11,556/-

¶117

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a

¶118

compensation of Rs.15,11,556/- as against Rs.13,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum (as against 9% per annum) from the date of petition till its realization.

¶119

The interim compensation of Rs.15,000/- already received by the claimants from the KSRTC shall be deducted from the afore-said compensation.

¶120

In all these appeals, claimants are entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum (as against 9% per annum) from the date of petition till its realization, which shall be paid by KSRTC.

¶121

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:45771 MFA No. 1681 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2715 of 2018 MFA No. 3202 of 2018

¶122

The apportionment, deposit and release of the compensation amount (in both appeals) shall be made as per the ratio adopted by the Tribunal.

¶123

The KSRTC is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation (in both appeals) awarded along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶124

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal in terms of the award.

¶125

The appeals by the KSRTC in MFA Nos.2715 of 2018 and 1681 of 2019 are accordingly dismissed .

¶126

The appeal by the claimants in MFA No.3202 of 2018 is accordingly allowed in part .

¶127

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶128

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Karnataka State Road v. Chikkalingamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. Chikkalingamma

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

Sri. Kumar Vs Sri. C. Nagappa

Sri. Kandan N Vs Sri. R. Paramesh

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri Chandrashekar v Bhat

Chandra G Vs M/S Icici Lambord Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Parvathamma

Prabhakar Reddy Vs the Manager