Partly allowed

Smt. Renuka Alias Renavva v. Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2024MFA.CROB/100085/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor vehicle death appeal by KSRTC challenging liability and quantum, with claimants' cross objection for enhancement. Court upheld sole negligence of KSRTC bus driver, raised notional income to Rs.10,250 per month per KSLSA chart, applied 40% future prospects and Magma consortium rates, and enhanced compensation to Rs.23,54,550 after deducting interim payment.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.18,61,250 to Rs.23,54,550 with 6% interest; KSRTC to deposit within six weeks.

Smt. Renuka Alias Renavva Vs Divisional Controller — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100233 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.100085 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶10

IN MFA NO.100233/2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC BALLARI, (OWNER OF BUS REG NO.KA-28/F-1827) R/BY. CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURGI.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. RENUKA @ RENAVVA @ RENUKAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA MADAR AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,

¶17

K M SOMASHEKAR Digitally signed by KM SOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶18

KUM. DIVYA D/O. BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA MADAR AGE. 8 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,

¶19

KUM. DEEPTI D/O.BASVARAJ @ BASAPPA MADAR AGE. 6 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,

¶20

RESPONDENTS NO. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS R/BY. RESPONDENT NO.1 AS THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN.

¶21

SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O.BALAPPA MADAR AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O.NIDASANUR VILLAGE, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.03/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-X, HUNGUND, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,61,250/- WITH INTEREST AT 7 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶24

IN MFA CROB NO. 100085/2022

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SMT. RENUKA @ RENAVVA @ RENUKAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA MADAR AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,

¶27

KUM. DIVYA D/O. BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA MADAR AGE. 9 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,

¶28

KUM. DEEPTI D/O.BASVARAJ @ BASAPPA MADAR AGE. 7 YEARS, OCC. NIL,

¶29

(CROSS OBJECTOR NOS. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS THE CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1 REPRESENTING AS THEIR NEXT FRIEND/ MINOR GUARDIAN).

¶30

SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O.BALAPPA MADAR AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O. NIDASANUR VILLAGE, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587118.

¶31

…CROSS OBJECTORS

¶32

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, BELLARY (OWNER OF BUS REG. NO. KA-28/F-1827)

¶35

…RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTTI, ADVOCATE)

¶37

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100233/2022 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-X, HUNGUND, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶40

THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Though these appeal as well as cross objection are listed

¶43

for admission, they are taken up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

¶44

2. KSRTC is in appeal in MFA No.100233/2022 challenging the liability saddled on it as well as quantum of compensation, whereas, the claimants are in cross objection in MFA Crob No.100085/2022 praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment & award dated 17.03.2021 passed in MVC No.3/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-X, Hungund (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶45

3. The claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Basavaraj @ Balappa Madar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the accidental death of one Basavaraj, that took place on 26.12.2017 involving unregistered new Motorcycle and KSRTC

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶48

Bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1827. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 29 years as on the date of the accident and was doing coolie work, earning a sum Rs.20,000/per month.

¶49

4. On service of notice, respondent-KSRTC appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections denying the entire claim petition averments. It was contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of deceased rider of motorcycle in question. It was further contended that there was no fault on the part of the driver of KSRTC, who was driving the bus following the traffic rules and regulations. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant. Thus, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶50

5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1-wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3, apart from marking the documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The respondent-KSRTC examined driver of the bus in question as RW1 and marked one document as Ex.R1. The Tribunal on scrutiny of entire material on record

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶52

awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,61,250/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization on the following heads:

¶53

Loss of dependency	Rs.17,21,250/-
Conveyance	Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of love and affection	Rs. 60,000/-
Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of consortium	Rs. 40,000/-
	------------------
Total	Rs.18,61,250/- ------------------

¶54

6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month, applied multiplier of 17, deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased and added 25% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of KSRTC bus and saddled entire liability on the appellant/Corporation. Thus, appellant-Corporation is in appeal challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation, whereas the claimants are in cross objection praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶57

7. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti for the appellant-Corporation, learned counsel Sri.Chandrashekhar R Hiremath for the cross-objectors-claimants and perused the appeal papers including original records of Tribunal.

¶58

8. Sri. S.C. Bhuti, learned counsel for the appellantCorporation in support of his appeal strenuously contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of rider of the motorcycle in question i.e. deceased Basavaraj. Learned counsel would submit that the deceased, who was not having driving license, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bus. He would further submit that the Tribunal without taking note of the evidence of PW2-eye witness, who stated that the bus is damaged on the left side and without considering Ex.P7-IMV report, erroneously came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of KSRTC bus. Further, learned counsel would submit that brother of the deceased Basavaraj filed a complaint and he was not an eye-witness to the accident in question. Learned counsel further submits that though the complaint states that the bus hit the hind side of the motorcycle due to which, deceased fell down and died at the spot, but RW1-driver of the

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶61

bus, deposed that motorcycle came from opposite direction and dashed to the bus, which evidence is ignored by the Tribunal. Thus, learned counsel submits that accident had occurred solely due to negligence of the deceased himself.

¶62

9. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Sri. S.C. Bhuti submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference. He further submits that the Tribunal could not have granted 7% interest on the compensation amount and he prays for reducing the same from 7% to 6%. Lastly, he submits that the Corporation has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as interim compensation, which is liable to be deducted from the total compensation. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the Corporation and seeks to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶63

10. Per contra , Sri.Chandrashekhar R Hiremath, learned counsel for the claimants in support of his cross objection would contend that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of the KSRTC bus. He submits that charge sheet had been filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus. Learned counsel would further submit that the notional income

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶66

assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per month is on the lower side, as the notional income fixed by KSLSA for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal committed an error in adding 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is further submitted that since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶67

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &

¶68

Others¹ , the claimants would be entitled to addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is his submission that the Tribunal failed to award loss of consortium of Rs.44,000/- each as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others² , including 10% escalation. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants by enhancing the compensation.

¶69

11. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with original

¶70

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶71

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶74

records, the following points would arise for our consideration in these appeals:

¶75

a) Whether the liability saddled on the Corporation is proper and correct?

¶76

b) Whether the claimants would be entitled to enhanced compensation?

¶77

12. Our answer to the above points would be in the “affirmative” for the following reasons:

¶78

13. The occurrence of the accident on 26.12.2017 involving unregistered new Motorcycle and KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1827, resultant death of the deceased Basavaraj is not in dispute. The Corporation is in appeal questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation granted, whereas the claimants are in cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶79

14. It is the contention of the Corporation that there is no fault on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus in causing the accident resulting in death of the deceased Basavaraj. The accident took place on Bagalakot-Hungund road. Ex.P5Mahazar would indicate that the alleged accident took place on the left side of the road. Ex.P7-IMV report indicates that front side of the bus is damaged in the middle. The case of the

¶80

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶81

claimants is that bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle from hind side, which requires to be believed. The case of the appellant/Corporation is that driver of the motorcycle came from opposite side and dashed to the bus. Except self-serving statement by RW1-driver of the bus, there is no other corroborative evidence to say that deceased came from opposite side and dashed to the bus. Admittedly, charge sheet is filed against driver of KSRTC bus. The Tribunal based on material evidence available on record has rightly held that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of driver of KSRTC bus. Thus, the contention of the appellant-KSRTC that the accident had taken place solely due to negligence of rider of the motorcycle cannot be accepted and same is rejected. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the “affirmative” holding that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of KSRTC bus by its driver.

¶82

15. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimants in order to prove the avocation and earning of the deceased have not produced any cogent or acceptable document. In the absence of any

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶85

documentary evidence to establish the avocation and income of the deceased, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2017, would normally assess notional income at Rs.10,250/- per month, taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative document to establish the income of the deceased, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,250/- p.m., taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA and also the minimum wage fixed.

¶86

16. The Tribunal has committed an error in adding 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased at 29 years, applicable multiplier of 17 and deduction of 1/4^th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as there are four dependents. Accordingly, the

¶87

12 -

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶89

claimants would be entitled to modified compensation on the head of loss of dependency at Rs.21,95,550/- (Rs.10,250 + 40/100 x 12 x 17x 3/4).

¶90

17. It is well settled law that claimants No.1 to 4 would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) including 10% escalation. In terms of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay

¶91

Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses including 10% escalation. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads:

¶92

Sl.	Particulars	Amount
No.
1.	Loss of dependency (Rs.10250+ 40/100x 12 x 17x3/4)	Rs.21,95,550/-
2.	Loss of estate & Funeral expenses & transportationofdead body	Rs. 33,000/-
3.	Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000/-each)	Rs. 1,70,000/-
	Total	Rs.24,04,550/-

¶93

18. The Tribunal while awarding compensation granted rate of interest at 7% per annum. Taking note of the present rate of Bank interest, we are inclined to reduce the rate of

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶96

interest on the compensation amount from 7% awarded by the Tribunal to 6% per annum.

¶97

19. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,04,550/- as against Rs.18,61,250/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

¶98

20. It is seen that KSRTC has already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards interim compensation, therefore, the said amount has to be deducted from total compensation of Rs.24,04,550/-. Thus, after deducting a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of

¶99

Rs.23,54,550/-.

¶100

21. In the result, we pass the following:

¶101

ORDER

¶102

a) Appeal as well as cross objection are allowed in part .

¶103

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.23,54,550/- as against Rs.18,61,250/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶104

14 -

¶105

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8586-DB MFA No.100233 of 2022 C/W MFA.CROB No.100085 of 2022

¶106

c) The enhanced compensation amount will bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization.

¶107

d) The appellant-Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶108

e) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with TCR.

¶109

f) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal.

¶110

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶111

Sd/JUDGE

¶112

Sd/JUDGE

¶113

JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15

Smt. Renuka Alias Renavva v. Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renuka Alias Renavva v. Divisional Controller

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

Smt Manjula W/O Sachin Vani Vs Sri Dr Ajay Nagabhushan M N IAS

Smt. Bharati D/O H.S. Patil Vs Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwar Education Society, Ujire

Smt Bharati D/O H S Patil Vs Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwar Education

Munnasab Nannusab Angdi Vs the Secretary to the Government

Rajesh Jakipiyedad Andraj Vs Shri Veeranagouda P Yeganagoudar

Umesh S/O. Mota Gouda Vs Smt Sarika W/O. Umesh Gouda