Smt B v Sangeetha Vs Divisional Controller, Ksrtc

CHAITANYA S. NAIK D/O LATE SHAKTHIPRASAD NAIK AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. B.V. SANGEETHA W/O LATE SHAKTHIPRASAD NAIK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶17

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KABALLI THANDYA, SAKKARAYAPATNA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577135.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. G RAVISHANKAR, ADVCOATE FOR SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CHIKKAMAGALORE 577101.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY MS. RENUKA H.R, ADVOCATE)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.741/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶28

IN MFA NO. 5183/2017

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALORE DIVISION, K S R T C BUS STAND, CHIKKAMAGALORE NOW THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT HOUSE, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU PIN 560027. NOW REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶31

...APPELLANT

¶32

(BY MS H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

SMT. B.V.SANGEETHA W/O LATE SHAKTIPRASAD NAIK, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶35

CHAITANYA S NAIK D/O LATE SHAKTIPRASAD NAIK, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS 7 MONTHS SINCE MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.B.V.SANGEETHA. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KABALLITHANDYA,

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

SAKKARAYAPATNA HOBLI, KADDUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT PIN 577548.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI.G RAVISHANKAR , ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶42

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.741/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, M.A.C.T., ARSIKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,58,000/-WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION AND ETC.

¶43

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER SUBMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

Both the appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988¹ calling in question the judgment and award dated 18.3.2017 passed in MVC No.741/2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Arsikere² . Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration.

¶46

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

¶47

1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’

¶48

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

¶49

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident which occurred on 21.03.2015, the claimants being the wife and minor son of the deceased, filed a claim petition contending, inter alia , that when the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle, the driver of a KSRTC bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from the opposite side, causing the accident in question, wherein the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The owner of the bus was arrayed as the respondent in the claim proceedings, who contested the same. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 18.03.2017, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,58,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum. Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred MFA No.6173/2017 seeking for enhancement of compensation and KSRTC being the owner of the bus has preferred MFA No.5183/2017, whereunder it is contended that the driver of the bus was not solely responsible for causing the accident in question as also that quantum of compensation awarded is excessive.

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Heard the learned counsel Sri G. Ravishankar for learned counsel Sri A.V. Gangadharappa appearing for the claimant and learned counsel Smt. H.R. Renuka appearing for the KSRTC. Perused the records, including the records of the Tribunal. The questions that arise for consideration are:

¶55

i. Whether the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?

¶56

ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with ?

¶57

Re: Question No.(i):

¶58

In the claim petition, it is averred that when the deceased was riding the motorcycle, a bus belonging to the KSRTC which is being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and hit the motorcycle in which the deceased was traveling. The KSRTC in its statement of objections disputed that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the bus. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and the FIR (Ex.P2), Complaint (Ex.P3), Final Report (Ex.P4) and other documents have been produced.

¶59

The driver of the bus has been examined as RW.1 and he has deposed that he was not negligent in causing the accident in

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

question and that there was dust on the road. The Tribunal considering the same, has noticed that RW.1 in his cross examination has admitted that the charge sheet has been filed against him by the police authorities. Apart from the self serving testimony of RW.1, KSRTC has not adduced any independent evidence of any eye witness to demonstrate that the deceased was negligent in causing the accident. The claimants having produced the relevant police records, as noticed above, which demonstrates that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the bus with regard to the accident. RW.1 also has not lodged any complaint against the deceased with regard to the manner of occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident. In view of the aforementioned, the KSRTC has failed in demonstrating that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on negligence is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, question No.(i) is answered in the negative.

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Re: Question No.(ii)

¶66

The age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the multiplier of ‘17’ applied by the Tribunal is just and proper.

¶67

It is averred that the deceased was working at Channabasaveshwara Drama Scenaries, Kadur as a Helper. However, no document is produced to demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. Having regard to the date of the accident, it is just and proper that the notional income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶68

As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi

¶69

& Ors.³ and considering the age of the deceased, 40% of income of the deceased is to be added to his income by way of future prospects. 1/3^rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses since the deceased was married and the claimants are his wife and son. Hence, loss of dependency is re-assessed

¶70

3 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

as (Rs.9,000/- + 40% - 1/3^rd x 12 x 17) = Rs.17,13,600/- as against Rs.10,87,932/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶74

As per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi³ and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Nanu Ram⁴ , claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the wife and son of the deceased are entitled to compensation of 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium with escalation at 20% and accordingly a sum of (48,000/- x 2) 96,000/- is awarded towards the same. 15,000/- each is required to be awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses with escalation at 20%. Accordingly, a sum of `18,000/- each is awarded towards the same. In view of the compensation having been awarded towards conventional heads as above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate, loss of love and affection is modified.

¶75

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. However, taking judicial notice of the interest payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 7% p.a., on the compensation as re-

¶76

4 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶77

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

assessed by this Court. Hence, question No.(ii) is answered in

¶80

the affirmative.

¶81

In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re-

¶82

assessed as follows:

¶83

Sl.No	Compensation Head	Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1	Loss of dependency	10,87,932.00	17,13,600.00
2	Loss of estate	10,000.00
3	Loss of love and affection	20,000.00	18,000.00
4	Towards transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses	10,000.00	18,000.00
5	Loss of Consortium	30,000.00	96,000.00
	Total	11,57,932.00	18,45,600.00

¶84

Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to an enhanced

¶85

compensation of (18,45,600/- - 11,57,932/-) `6,87,668/-.

¶86

In view of the aforementioned, the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

i) Both the appeals are partly allowed;

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:25011 MFA No. 6173 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5183 of 2017

¶90

10 -

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

ii) The judgment and award dated 18.3.2017 passed in MVC No.741/2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Arsikere is modified to the extent of holding that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of `18,45,600/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from date of petition till realization;

¶93

iii) The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA No.5183/2017 together with records be transmitted to the Tribunal;

¶94

iv)The appellant in MFA No.5183/2017respondent in the claim petition shall pay the balance compensation together with accrued interest within six weeks;

¶95

v) The disbursement of the compensation shall be in terms of the judgment and award of the Tribunal;

¶96

vi) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly;

¶97

No costs.

¶98

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶99

BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Smt B v. Sangeetha v Divisional Controller, Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B v. Sangeetha v Divisional Controller, Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Anjum Sulthana Vs Dr M Girish Babu

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri B M Satish

Nagendra Vs Sathish

K Murali Vs the Managing Director

Mallikarjunappa Vs Syed Sameer

M/S National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Sujatha