Partly allowed

Divisional Controller v. Rangaiaha

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2024MFA/792/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fatal road accident where a KSRTC bus ran over a motorcycle rider and pillion rider. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence against the bus driver, rejected the plea that two pillion riders implied negligence, and enhanced compensation for the rider's parents using notional income, Pranay Sethi additions, and Sarla Verma multiplier.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.14,93,900 with interest at 6% p.a. less ex gratia Rs.15,000; KSRTC appeals dismissed; deposit directed with investment conditions.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 792 OF 2018

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2018, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 999 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶8

IN MFA No. 792/2018:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

¶11

K S R T C, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT OWNER OF BUS NO.KA-10-F-109 NOW REP BY M.D, K S R T C ., CENTRAL OFFICE, K H RD BENGALURU 560027

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. B PHALAKSHAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

RANGAIAHA S/O LATE KULLAIAH AGE:53 YEARS,

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

SMT SAKAMMA W/O RANGAIAH AGE 48 YEARS,

¶18

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MUGURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, TNARASEPURA TALUK,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶21

MYSURU DISTRICT-571 124.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. NAGESH.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 26.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1059/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, TIRUMAKUDALU NARASIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,99,000/WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶25

IN MFA NO. 793/2018:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K S R T C., CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT OWNER OF BUS OF KA-10-F-109 NOW REP BY M.D, K S R T C., K H RD, BENGALURU 560027.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. B PHALAKSHAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

MAHADEVA SWAMY S/O LATE NANJUNDAYYA AGE 53 YEARS,

¶32

SMT SHOBHA W/O MAHADEVASWAY AGE 48 YEAS,

¶33

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DR AMBRDKAR COLONY AND HOBLI TARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571124.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶36

(BY SRI. NAGESH.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1058/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, T.NARASIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,99,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶38

IN MFA NO. 999/2019:

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

SRI. RANGAIAH S/O LATE KULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶41

SMT SAKAMMA W/O. RANGAIAH,

¶42

BOTH ARE R/AT MUGURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571114, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶43

...APPELLANTS

¶44

(BY SRI. NAGESH M., ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶47

OWNER OF BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-10-F-109.

¶48

...RESPONDENT

¶49

(BY SRI. B.PHALAKSHAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶50

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26/10/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1059/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND MACT, TIRUMAKUDALU NARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING

¶51

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶52

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶53

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

¶54

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶55

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶56

An accident occurred on 04.04.2015 which resulted in

¶57

the death of two persons viz., rider—Nagendra and one of the pillion riders—Naveen who were on a motor cycle.

¶58

The case of the claimants as stated in their claim petitions was that the KSRTC bus drove over two riders which resulted in their instantaneous death.

¶59

The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred as a result of the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and thereafter proceeded to award a sum of Rs.11,99,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the rider—Nagendra.

¶60

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶61

The KSRTC being aggrieved by the said award has preferred two appeals in MFA Nos.792 and 793 of 2018.

¶62

The legal representatives of the rider of the motor cycle—Nagendra are in appeal in MFA No.999 of 2019.

¶63

The legal representatives of the other pillion rider— Naveen have accepted the award of the Tribunal and have not chosen to prefer an appeal.

¶64

The KSRTC has preferred the appeals contending that the evidence on record indicated that the rider of the two-wheeler who was carrying two pillion riders, hit a pedestrian, lost control over the motor-cycle, fell down on the road and the KSRTC bus which was approaching them ran over the rider and a pillion rider due to them falling suddenly on the road. It is contended that the accident occurred because the motor-cycle was carrying three occupants and had hit a pedestrian.

¶65

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶66

It is sought to be argued that no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the KSRTC bus since it was impossible for him to avoid an accident of this nature.

¶67

The claimants, on the other hand, contended that the accident occurred about 200 meters from a temple in which a religious festival was being conducted and there was a huge crowd gathered. It is contended that having regard to the fact that the accident occurred within the town limits, it is obvious that the KSRTC bus driver could never have driven the bus even at a moderate speed, and having regard to the fact that the driver of the KSRTC bus had himself had stated that the pillion riders of the two wheeler had fallen down on the road and thereafter, he had run over them would, by itself, indicate the speed at which the bus was being driven. It is therefore contended that the driver of the KSRTC bus was responsible for the accident. To substantiate the

¶68

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶69

same, reliance was also placed on by them on the charge-sheet laid against the driver of KSRTC bus.

¶70

As far as the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus is concerned, it has to be noticed here that the driver himself had stated that he was driving the bus at a slow speed since there was a religious function being conducted at a temple where the accident took place. This statement of the driver himself indicates that the accident occurred within the town limits and in the proximity of a temple.

¶71

The KSRTC has also produced the press reports relating to the accident which contains the photographs of the incident and a perusal of the photographs would indicate that the accident occurred within the town limits and it is therefore obvious that the driver of the KSRTC bus could not have driven his bus at a high speed.

¶72

If the statement of the driver of the KSRTC bus to the effect the two-wheeler hit a pedestrian and thereafter,

¶73

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶74

lost control of the vehicle and fell down on the road and then the bus ran over them is to be accepted, it is obvious that the driver of the KSRTC bus was driving the bus at a high speed.

¶75

It has to be noticed here that the driver of the KSRTC bus, sitting at a higher position, would have had an ample and full vision over the entire area. If he could not stop the bus, that too, within the town limits, to prevent running over two people who had fallen on the road, it will have to be presumed that he was driving the bus at a breakneck speed which resulted in the accident.

¶76

In my view, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the KSRTC bus was responsible for the death of the rider and a pillion rider.

¶77

The argument that there were two pillion riders and that, by itself, amounts to negligence cannot be accepted firstly because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶78

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶79

Mohammed Siddique’s¹ case has held that mere carrying two pillion riders on a motor-cycle would not lead to an inference that the rider of the motor-cycle was negligent. The Tribunal has held that there is nothing on record to indicate as a result of carrying two pillion riders, the accident occurred and it accordingly came to the conclusion that there was a clear evidence to hold that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC bus.

¶80

Admittedly, in the instant case, it is not even the defence of the driver of the KSRTC bus that because the rider of motor-cycle was carrying two pillions, the accident occurred. I am therefore of the view that the argument of the KSRTC that because of carrying two pillion riders on the motor-cycle resulted in the accident cannot be accepted.

¶81

The appeals by the KSRTC are therefore dismissed .

¶82

1 Mohammed Siddique and another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2020) 20 SCC 632

¶83

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶84

As far as compensation is concerned, as already stated above, it is only the legal representatives of the rider—Nagendra are in appeal.

¶85

The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence adduced before it, has proceeded to award the following sums as compensation:

¶86

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal
		(In Rs.)
1.	Loss of financial dependency	11,34,000/-
2.	Funeral expenses	25,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	10,000/-
4.	Loss of love and affection	20,000/-
5.	Transportation of dead body	10,000/-
	Total :	11,99,000/-

¶87

The Tribunal, in order to arrive at the said compensation, has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, since there was no proof of his actual income.

¶88

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶89

In cases where there is no evidence to determine the actual income, it is appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which for the accidents of the year 2015 is Rs.9,000/- .

¶90

As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi² , as the deceased was aged about 24 years, 40% of the same (Rs.3,600/-) is required to be added to the said income as future prospects and the resultant income would be Rs.12,600/- .

¶91

Since the deceased was unmarried, out of the said sum, 50% will have to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor, which makes his monthly income as Rs.6,300/- for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency.

¶92

As the deceased was aged 24 years, as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶93

2 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶94

12 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶96

the case of Sarla Verma³ , a multiplier of '18’ would

¶97

have to be applied.

¶98

Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.6,300/- x 12 x '18') towards

¶99

“ loss of dependency ” .

¶100

The claimants being the parents of the deceased, as per Pranay Sethi⁴ , they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards “ loss of consortium ” i.e., in all Rs.96,800/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the

¶101

“ conventional heads ” .

¶102

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

¶103

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Awarded by this Court (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	13,60,800/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	96,800/-

¶104

3 Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶105

4 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶106

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶107

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Awarded by this Court (In Rs.)
3.	Conventional Heads	36,300/-
	Total :	14,93,900/-

¶108

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,93,900/- as against Rs.11,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum (as against 9%) from the date of petition till its realization except for the delay period of 370 days in filing the appeal.

¶109

A sum of Rs.15,000/- paid to the claimants as ex gratia shall be deducted from the said amount.

¶110

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

¶111

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:48484 MFA No. 792 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 793 of 2018 MFA No. 999 of 2019

¶112

On such deposit, out of the compensation and interest, 75% of the same shall be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of the claimants in any nationalized bank or post office for a period of five years. The claimants shall be at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued thereon. Balance 25% of the compensation shall be paid to the claimants on proper identification.

¶113