Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs C. Akshatha

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD BENGALURU-MYSORE RURAL DIVISION MYSORE-560 027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

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

¶17

AND:

¶18

C. AKSHATHA D/O. LATE K.C. SUNIL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶19

C. SUTHIN KUMAR S/O. LATE K.C. SUNIL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶20

C. VANAJA W/O. LATE K.C. SUNIL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NISARGA LAYOUT VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶27

¶28

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26-2-2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.208 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGUMADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,60,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶29

IN MFA.CROB NO.121/2021

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

C. AKSHATHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O. LATE K.C. SUNIL.

¶32

C. SUTHIN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O LATE K.C. SUNIL.

¶33

C. VANAJA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O. LATE K.C. SUNIL

¶34

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NISARGA LAYOUT VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218.

¶35

...CROSS OBJECTORS

¶36

(BY SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD

¶39

3 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD BENGALURU-MYSORE RURAL DIVISION MYSORE-560 027. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶43

...RESPONDENT

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26-2-2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.208 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, KODAGU, MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶47

THIS MFA AND MFA CROB. ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶49

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶50

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/Cross objectors and learned counsel for respondents.

¶52

MFA No.485/2021 is filed by the Karnataka State Road Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 26.02.2020 passed in MVC No.208/2015 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, Virajpet (for short, 'Tribunal'),

¶53

4 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas MFA.Crob.No.121/2021 is filed by the Cross objectors/claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation, whereby, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,60,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶57

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶58

Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal is as under:-

¶59

On 20.04.2015 at about 9.15 p.m., one K.C. Sunil Kumar alongwith his friend M.A. Dasthagiri was proceeding towards Virajpet from Bittangala as pillion rider in motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-12/J-2926 and when they reached near Yajna Tower and Restaurant, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-10/F-0088 driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner from Gonikoppal and hit the motorcycle of Sunil Kumar, consequent upon which, Sunil Kumar and his friend Dasthagiri sustained injuries and immediately they were shifted to Mysore and later to Tallicherry Cooperative Hospital, Kerala, wherein Sunil Kumar took treatment for seven days and succumbed to the injuries on 07.05.2015. Hence,

¶60

5 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act. Claimant No.1 is the daughter, claimant No.2 is the son and claimant No.3 is the wife of deceased K.C. Sunil Kumar.

¶64

Learned counsel Smt. Renuka H.R., appearing for the Corporation-Appellant in MFA No.485/2021 vehemently contended that the Tribunal assessed the compensation by determining the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m. without any basis. As per the case of the claimants, deceased was running a hotel by name Akshatha Hotel and the documents produced in respect of occupation of the deceased is the notarized copy of the licence, which was valid from 01.04.2012 till 31.03.2013. Hence, no documents were produced to prove that Akshatha Hotel was being run by the deceased as on the date of the accident i.e., in the year 2015. Further, the Tribunal has granted an exorbitant compensation under conventional heads and the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., which is excessive and erroneous and the same needs to be reduced to 6% p.a., On all these grounds, learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal.

¶65

Learned counsel Sri. Mohana Chandra P, appearing for the Cross objectors-claimants in MFA.Crob.No.121/2021 vehemently contended that the Tribunal awarded meager compensation of

¶66

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Rs.1.00 lakh towards 'loss of love and affection' which is against the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Further, the Tribunal has not awarded fair compensation towards 'loss of consortium'. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation for the medical expenses vide Ex-P10. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'future prospects', since the deceased was below the age of 50 years at the time of the accident. Hence, learned counsel prayed to allow the cross objection appeal.

¶69

We have perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The following points would arise for our consideration in these appeals:-

¶70

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?

¶71

In the instant cases, the Corporation has not disputed the accident, cause of death and liability to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶72

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/considering the evidence of the claimants and Ex-P10. Prior to the accident, the deceased was running a hotel. From the perusal of Exs-P13-receipt and Ex-P15-License certificate, it shows that Sunildeceased was running a hotel under the name Akshatha Hotel and licence was extended till the year 2013 and thereafter, license was not renewed. It shows that the deceased was having an average income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. during the year 2015. Further, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- without any proof. Thus, we reduce the notional income of the deceased from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- which is fair and reasonable one.

¶75

The accident is of the year 2015 and the deceased was aged about 47 years at the time of the accident. The Corporation has not disputed this aspect. Thus the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is '13'. The deceased died leaving behind his wife and two children and therefore, proper deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3^rd . The Tribunal has not considered future prospects. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and

¶76

others , reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants are entitled

¶77

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

for future prospects to the income of the deceased as he was below the age of 50 years. Thus the 'loss of dependency' works out to Rs.12,99,948/-(Rs.10,000 +25% = 12,500 x 1/3^rd = Rs.4,167/-,

¶80

Rs.12,500/- - Rs.4,167/-= Rs.8,333 x 12 x13=Rs.12,99,948/-

¶81

which is rounded off to Rs.13,00,000/-.

¶82

The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head ' medical expenses '. As per Ex-P10-Hospital bills, the claimants have incurred expenses of Rs.42,670/-. Hence, we grant a sum of Rs.42,670/- towards 'medical expenses'.

¶83

The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding fair and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in ( 2018) 18 SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi's case referred supra, as there are three claimants, they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head 'loss of consortium'. Accordingly, Rs.1,44,000/-(Rs.40,000+20% escalation x 3) is awarded under the head ' loss of consortium'.

¶84

Further, a compensation of Rs.18,000/- each is awarded under the heads ' loss of estate' and 'funeral and transportation

¶85

9 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

expenses '. Therefore, a sum of Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards 'loss

¶89

of estate' and Rs.18,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.

¶90

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following

¶91

compensation:-

¶92

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	13,00,000
Towardsloss ofconsortium	1,44,000
Medical expenses	42,670
Loss of Estate	18,000
Funeralexpenses	18,000
TOTAL	15,22,670
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	17,60,000/-
BALANCE	- 2,37,330/-

¶93

With regard to award of interest, the learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vehemently argued to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum contending that the same is on the higher side. In the decision rendered by this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5896 of 2018 (MV) and connected matters in the case of Ms. Joyeeta Bose and Others v. Venkateshan V. and Others , wherein a similar question arose with regard to awarding of interest, keeping in view Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it has been held that rate of interest shall not exceed 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Therefore, in the

¶94

10 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:34839-DB MFA No. 485 of 2021 C/W MFA.CROB No. 121 of 2021

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

present cases also, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% per annum

¶98

from 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal.

¶99

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

MFA.Crob.No.121/2021 filed by the Cross Objectors/claimants is dismissed.

¶102

MFA No.485/2021 filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is allowed .

¶103

The judgment and award dated 26.02.2020 passed in MVC No.208/2015 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, Virajpet is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶104

The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,22,670/- as against Rs.17,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with reduced compensation of Rs.2,37,330/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶105