Sri Thimmarayappa Vs the Managing Director

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED14.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2156/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES MACT BANGALORE CITY (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶31

IN MFA NO. 4597/2017:

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶34

...APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI. F S DABALI., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

SRI THIMMARAYAPPA S/O SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶38

SMT RATHNAMMA W/O SRI THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶39

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.38,

¶40

3 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

MANNARAPUR VILLAGE, AJJAVARA POST, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN:562101 (BUT WRONGLY SHOWN AS KOLAR DISTRICT, IN THE CAUSE TITLE BEFORE TRIBUNAL).

¶44

SHAFEEULLA, S/O EBRAHIM SAB, AGE:MAJOR, OWNER OF GOODS TEMP VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-04-A-4788, NO.385, MANCHANABLE VILLAGE TALUK AND DIST:CHIKKABALLAPUR, PIN- 562 101.

¶45

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., SRINIVAS MARKET COMPLEX, 1974, CINEMA ROAD, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN:561 203. INSURER OF TATA 407, GOODS TEMPO KA-04-A-4788 VIDE POLICY NO.604202/31/12/6700000711 VALID FROM 27-04-2012 TO 20-04-2013

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI.K.DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; NOTICE TO R-3 & R-4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.01.2018)

¶48

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2156/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,(SCCH-14), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.

¶49

4 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

IN MFA NO. 4733/2018:

¶53

BETWEEN:

¶54

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CHICKBALLAPUR DIVISION CHICKBALLAPUR-562101 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶55

...APPELLANT

¶56

(BY SRI. F S DABALI., ADVOCATE)

¶57

AND:

¶58

SRI. VENU S/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A MANNARAPURE VILLAGE CHICKBALALPUR TALUK/DISTRICT-562101.

¶59

SHAFEEULLA

¶60

S/O IBRAHIM SAB, AGE:MAJOR R/A NO.385, MANCHANABELE VILLAGE CHICKBALAPUR TALUK/DISTRICT-562101 (OWNER OF THE TEMPO BEARING REG.NO.KA-4-A-4788)

¶61

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD R/A SRINIVAS MARKET COMPLEX NO.1974, CINEMA ROAD DODDABALLAPUR BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203 (INSURANCE REG.NO.KA-4-A-4788 VIDE POLICY NO.604202/31/12/6750711)

¶62

...RESPONDENTS

¶63

(NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED; BY SRI. L.SREKANT RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶64

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED27.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.126/2013 ON

¶65

5 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHICKABALLAPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THIS PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶69

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

¶70

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶71

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶72

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶73

A Transport Corporation’s appeal in MFA 4597/2017 and 4733/2018 are against the Judgment and Award dated 14.12.2016 and 27.09.2017,respectively, in MVC No.2156/2016 and MVC No.126/2013. The first claim petition is on the file of the MACT, Bengaluru, and the other claim petition is on the file of the First Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur. The claimants in MVC No.2156/2016 have filed their appeal in MFA No.4307/2017.

¶74

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

The claimants in MVC No.2156/2016 are parents of the deceased, Sri Murali, who was traveling with the other claimant in a goods vehicle tempo bearing No. KA-04-A-4788 on 22.03.2013 near Bommanahalli - Sonnenahalli Gate when there was an accident involving this vehicle and the Transport Corporation's bus. The Tribunals, while answering the similar Issue on whether the respective claimants prove that the accident was because of the driver of the Transport Corporation's bus, have opined that indeed the accident was because of this driver [ the Bus Driver ].

¶77

The Tribunal has granted to the claimants in MVC No.2156/2016 [the parents of Sri Murali], compensation in a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, and these claimants have filed their appeal in MFA No.4307/2017 seeking enhancement in the

¶78

compensation. The claimant in MVC No.126/2013

¶79

7 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

[the injured], who is awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/with interest at 6% per annum, has filed no appeal.

¶83

Sri. F.S. Dabali, the learned counsel for

¶84

the Transport Corporation, and Sri. K. Dhiraj Kumar, the learned counsel for the Insurer of the goods vehicle are heard for final disposal of the appeal. Sri. F.S. Dabali submits that this Court will have to decide:

¶85

whether the Tribunals are justified in their conclusion that the accident is because of the negligence of the Bus Driver .

¶86

The learned counsel also submits that, because the claimants in MVC No.2156/2016 have sought for enhancement of the compensation, this Court will have to decide whether their claim for enhancement is justified.

¶87

The Transport Corporation contends that

¶88

the accident occurred when its bus was exiting a narrow bridge and that the driver of the goods vehicle

¶89

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

was rash and negligent; and to support this defense, the Transport Corporation has examined the Bus Driver, Sri Doddappa Patil, in MVC 2156/2016. He has deposed, as is seen from the Tribunal's consideration, that the driver of the goods vehicle was negligent, and when he tried to lodge an FIR with the police against this driver, the police have not registered his information. However, the Tribunal has disbelieved his evidence, and the Tribunal’s reason reads as under:

¶92

"13. Copies of police records namely FIR with

¶93

complaint, charge sheet, spot panchanama and IMV report are at Ex.P1, 2, 5 and 6. On perusal of said police records, it reveals that Shidlaghatta Rural police have registered Cr.No.68/2013 on 22.03.2013 at about 03.45 p.m., on the basis of information given by one Venu, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-40-F6220 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. There

¶94

9 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

was no delay in lodging complaint. The first informant is the brother of the deceased Muruli @ Murali. RW.1 was released on bail on 26.03.2013. It means, after the accident, RW.1 fled away from the spot and not available to police. Both the vehicles were detained at the place of accident under spot panchanama. The said vehicles were found severely damaged. Brake system of both the vehicles was in order. The accident was not because of mechanical defects. It means, the accident has occurred due to human error. The charge sheet filed by the police corroborates the oral evidence of PW.1 and 2. There is no corroboration to the evidence of RW.1. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of charge sheet and to hold that the investigation done by the police is defective or collusive. There is no evidence regarding sole or contributory negligence on the part of the driver of tempo. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accident was due to sole negligence of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-40-F-622. Evidence of RW.1 is self serving and his conduct goes against the

¶98

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

defence of the respondent. Evidence of PW.1 and 2 is corroborated by the contents of Ex.P1 to 7 which collectively substantiate the averments of the petition. Hence, I hold that the petitioners have succeeded to prove this issue and answer the same in affirmative."

¶101

This Court opines that the Tribunal’s

¶102

appreciation of the Bus driver's evidence does not call for an interference especially when the Transport Corporation does not contest the police documents. The Police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet against the Bus Driver. There is nothing on record other than the Bus Driver’s evidence as aforesaid, and this evidence does not overwhelm the outcome of investigation. Hence, the first question is answered against the Transport Corporation.

¶103

The Tribunal has granted to the

¶104

deceased’s parents [ the claimants in MVC 2156/2016 ] Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of dependency apart from Rs.80,000/towards loss of consortium and

¶105

11 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

Rs.30,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. The Tribunal has computed the loss of dependency, because the claimant was aged 16 years, taking an annual income of Rs.30,000/- and applying the multiplier of ' 18' . The claimants’ evidence is that their son was aged about 18 years and that he was working as a coolie. There is nothing on record to show that Sri Murali was attending school or was otherwise a coolie. However, the undisputed fact is that he was traveling with another in a goods vehicle and that his age, even if 16 years, probabalizes that he was working as a coolie. This Court must record that the claimants' station in life also points out to the deceased being a coolie.

¶109

In which event, the income that would be just must be taken to ensure that there is a reasonable compensation. In the case where the vocation of the deceased/victim is established but there is no proof of actual income, this Court, for

¶110

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

reasons of consistency and uniformity, adopts the notional income as per the table evolved for settlement in the Lok Adalath. In the cases of claim petition arising out of accidents in the year 2013, the notional income is taken at Rs.8,000/- per month, but because there is no positive evidence to show that the deceased had attained the age of 18 and because there is no evidence that he was earning, this Court is of the view that the monthly notional income must be taken at Rs.6,000/- to arrive at just

¶113

and reasonable compensation. The loss of dependency must be computed accordingly with the addition of 40% towards future prospects deducting one–half [1/2^nd ] towards personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of '18'. The loss of dependency as against Rs.5,40,000/- will be in a sum of Rs.9,07,200/-.

¶114

The computation of	Loss of Depend	ency
MonthlyIncome	Rs.	6,000/-
Addition towards Future
Prospects	40% Rs.	2,400/-

¶115

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

Monthly Income + Future Prospects		Rs.8,400/-
Annual Income		Rs. 1,00,800/-
Deduction Towards personal expenses	1/2	Rs. 50,400/-
Multiplicand [After Deduction
towards personal Expenses]		Rs. 50,400/-
Multiplier	18
Loss of Dependency		Rs.9,07,200/-

¶118

In addition, each of the parents of the deceased would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.30,000/towards transportation and funeral expenses. The accident is on 22.03.2013 and because interest is admitted on these amounts, there cannot be escalation at 10% for every three years. The claimants will be thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 09,07,200/- as against Rs.6,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants will be entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.3,67,200/- which is brought out by the following comparative table.

¶119

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

*Sl.* *No.*	*Heads*		*By the* *Tribunal*	*By this Court*
1	Loss of depende	ncy	Rs.5,40,000/-	*Rs.9,07,200/-*
2	Loss of love affection	and	Rs.40,000/-
3	Loss of estate		Rs.40,000/-	*Rs.80,000/-*
4	Loss of consortiu	m	-
5	Towards fu expenses transportation dead body	neral and of	Rs.30,000/-	*Rs.30,000/-*
	*TOTAL*		_Rs.6,50,000/- _	*Rs.10,17,200/-*
*Enh*	*anced compensa*	*tion*	*Rs.3,6*	_7,200/- _

¶122

In the light of the afore, the following:

¶123

ORDER

¶124

[A] The appeal in MFA No.4307/2017 is allowed in part granting enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.3,67,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶125

[B] The appeals in MFA Nos.4597/2017 and 4733/2018 are disposed of.

¶126

15 -

¶127

NC: 2025:KHC:27464-DB MFA No. 4307 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4597 of 2017 MFA No. 4733 of 2018

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

[C] The amount in deposit in the corresponding

¶130

appeals are transmitted to the Tribunals for

¶131

disbursement.

¶132

[D] The Transport Corporation is called upon to deposit the balance amount with interest as aforementioned within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the

¶133

order .

¶134

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶135

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶136

RKA

¶137

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Thimmarayappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

Sri Thimmarayappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Basavaraju Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri S v Basappa Vs Sri Siddaramu

Kum. Prithi @ Preethi Vs Akhil Varghese

Smt Lakshmi Sunitha @ Sunitha Vs Sri Swaroop

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Swapna R

Sri. Shyama Shanbhag Vs Sri. Chethan Kumar M