The Manager Vs Smt Pramila

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7869/2015 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1399/2017 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1400/2017 (MV-I) MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.90/2018 (MV-I)

¶12

MFA NO. 8710/2015:

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE MANAGER APSRTC VC & MD KANIGIRI, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD …APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT PRAMILA

¶19

W/O LATE A.M.VENKATACHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶20

SMT.PUSHPA M.V. D/O LATE A.M.VENKATACHALAPATHI W/O SRI G.DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶21

SMT.SUDHA M.V. D/O LATE A.M.VENKATACHALAPATHI

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶24

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶25

W/O SRI RAMESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶26

SMT.SWETHA M.V. D/O LATE A.M.VENKATACHALAPATHI W/O SRI NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS A1 TO A4 ARE R/AT NO.343 KAVERI ROAD, 4^TH CROSS UDAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 016

¶27

SRI R.RAMESH S/O SRI RAMANNA MAJOR R/AT NO.497/1, KOTE HOSAKOTE TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114

¶28

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MOTOR CLAIMS HUB REP. BY ITS MANAGER R/AT NO.144, 2^ND FLOOR SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 … RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI N.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 SERVED)

¶30

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1389/14 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.25,06,350/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶31

MFA NO.7869/2015:

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 BY IT’S MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶36

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶37

AND:

¶38

PRAMILA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O A M VENKATACHALAPATHI

¶39

PUSHPA M V AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O A M VENKATACHALAPATHI W/O G DEVARAJ

¶40

SUDHA M V AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS D/O A M VENKATACHALAPATHI W/O RAMESH

¶41

SWETHA M V AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O A M VENKATACHALAPATHI W/O NARAYANASWAMY

¶42

R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT NO.343, KAVERI ROAD 4^TH CROSS, UDAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 016

¶43

THE MANAGER APSRTC, VC & MD, KANIGIRI PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 1

¶44

SRI R RAMESH MAJOR S/O RAMANNA R/AT NO.497/1, KOTE HOSASKOTE TOWN – 562 114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6 SERVED)

¶46

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1389/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.25,06,350/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶49

MFA NO.1399/2017:

¶50

BETWEEN:

¶51

THE MANAGER APSRTC VC & MD KANIGIRI, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.P.S.R.T.C, MUSHIRABAD HYDERABAD …APPELLANT

¶52

(BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND:

¶54

SRI G DEVARAJA S/O K V GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KADAGATTUR VILLAGE KYALANUR POST, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT

¶55

SRI R RAMESH S/O RAMANNA MAJOR R/AT NO.497/1 KOTE, HOSKOTE TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶56

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MOTOR CLAIMS HUB NO.144, 2^ND FLOOR SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 … RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 13.07.2023)

¶58

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.157/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,15,700/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% PER ANNUM INTEREST FROM DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶60

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶61

MFA NO.1400/2017:

¶62

BETWEEN:

¶63

THE MANAGER APSRTC VC & MD KANIGIRI, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.P.S.R.T.C, MUSHIRABAD HYDERABAD …APPELLANT

¶64

(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶65

AND:

¶66

SRI K S CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRINIVASAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT KADAGATTUR VILLAGE KYALANUR POST, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT

¶67

SRI R RAMESH S/O RAMANNA MAJOR R/AT NO.497/1 KOTE, HOSKOTE TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶68

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MOTOR CLAIMS HUB NO.144, 2^ND FLOOR SHUBHARAM COMPLEX

¶69

M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS

¶70

BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 SERVED)

¶71

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.158/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.16,28,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT

¶72

6 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶74

MFA CROB. NO. 90/2018:

¶75

BETWEEN:

¶76

SRI K S CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRINIVASAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT KADAGATTUR VILLAGE KYALANUR POST

¶77

KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT ...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶78

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

¶79

AND:

¶80

THE MANAGER APSRTC VC & MD KANIGIRI PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

¶81

R RAMESH S/O RAMANNA MAJOR R/AT NO.497/1 KOTE, HOSKOTE TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶82

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB NO.144, 2^ND FLOOR SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶83

...RESPONDENTS

¶84

(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 02.02.2023)

¶85

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22(1) OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.08.2016 PASSED ON MVC NO.158/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶86

7 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶88

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS AND MFA CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶89

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND

¶90

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶91

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶92

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶93

Claim petitions arise out of accident which occurred on 08.02.2014. Therefore, all the matters are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. Particulars of the appeals, corresponding claim petitions and the appellants are set out in

¶94

the table below:

¶95

Sl. No.	MVC No.	Claimant	Amount of compensation Claimed (in Rs.)	Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.)	Case Nos.	Appeals preferred by
1	1389/2014 XXI ACMM & XXIII ASCJ, Bangalore	Smt.Pramila & others	50,00,000/-	25,06,350/-	MFA No.8710/2015	APSRTC
2	1389/2014 XXI ACMM & XXXIII ASCJ,Bangalore	Smt.Pramila & others	50,00,000/-	25,06,350/-	MFA No.7869/2015	National Insurance Co. Ltd. Insurer of van
3	157/2014 VIII AD & SJ Bangalore Rural District	G.Devaraja	15,00,000/-	3,15,700/-	MFA No.1399/2017	APSRTC
4	158/2014 VIII AD & SJ, Bangalore Rural District	K.S.Chandrashekar	25,00,000/-	16,28,000/-	MFA No.1400/2017	APSRTC
5	158/2014 VIII AD & SJ, Bangalore Rural District	K.S.Chandrashekar	25,00,000/-	16,28,000/-	MFA Crob.No. 90/2018	K.S.Chandrashekar

¶96

On 08.02.2014 at 11.00 p.m. when claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 along with

¶97

A.M.Venkatachalapathi were proceeding in Maruthi van bearing Registration No.KA-53-M-6023 near Alambagiri Cross at

¶98

8 -

¶99

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶100

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶101

Kadapa Bangalore Road, APSRTC bus bearing Registration No.AP-29-Z-1418 hit Maruthi van. In the accident, the claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 suffered injuries and A.M.Venkatachalapathi succumbed to the injuries at the spot. At the time of the accident, APSRTC was registered owner of bus, Ramesh and National Insurance Company Ltd. were the registered owner and insurer of van bearing Registration No.KA-53-M-6023.

¶102

Regarding the accident, on the complaint of one G.Ashok, Chintamani Rural Police registered first information report in Crime No.50/2014 against the driver of APSRTC bus. On investigation, said police filed charge sheet against the driver of the aforesaid APSRTC bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC.

¶103

Injured claimants filed M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 before VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- respectively and legal representatives of deceased A.M.Venkatachalapathi filed M.V.C.No.1389/2014 before XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru

¶104

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶105

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/from the

¶106

respondents.

¶107

In M.V.C.No.1389/2014, legal representatives of

¶108

deceased A.M.Venkatachalapathi contended that deceased A.M.Venkatachalapathi was serving as Special Reserve Head Constable earning Rs.35,000/- per month and they were completely dependent on his income. They further contended that due to accidental death of Venkatachalapathi, they have suffered damages and APSRTC is liable to compensate the same.

¶109

Claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and

¶110

M.V.C.No.158/2014 contended that in the accident, they suffered grievous injuries and permanent physical disability, they have suffered loss of future earnings, therefore respondents are liable to compensate the same.

¶111

In all the cases, APSRTC contested the petitions denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. APSRTC contended that accident occurred solely due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of van. It further

¶112

denied age, occupation, income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants, injuries and permanent physical disability

¶113

10 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶115

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶116

suffered by the claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and

¶117

M.V.C.No.158/2014. Thus sought dismissal of the claim petitions.

¶118

Insurer of Maruthi van/National Insurance Company Ltd. contended that accident occurred solely due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of APSRTC and the police on investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of APSRTC bus. It further denied the age, occupation, dependency of the claimants, injuries suffered by the claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014. Thus sought dismissal of the petitions.

¶119

Owner of Maruthi van in all these cases did not contest the petitions.

¶120

The Tribunal in M.V.C.No.1389/2014 on recording the evidence of the parties and on hearing them held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of driver of Maruthi van and APSRTC Bus in the ratio of 50% each and awarded compensation of Rs.25,06,350/- with interest at 8% per annum payable by APSRTC and Insurer of Maruthi van equally.

¶121

11 -

¶122

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶123

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶124

In M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 the Tribunal relying on the evidence of the parties held that the accident occurred solely due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of APSRTC bus. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,15,700/and Rs.16,28,000/in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 respectively with interest at 8% per annum payable by APSRTC.

¶125

Challenging the findings regarding negligence as well as quantum, APSRTC and insurer of van have preferred the above said appeals as set out in the table above. Questioning adequacy of compensation, claimant in M.V.C.No.158/2014 has filed cross objection in M.F.A.Crob.No.90/2018.

¶126

Submissions of Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for APSRTC:

¶127

The evidence on record shows that APSRTC bus was

¶128

being driven slowly and cautiously and it was the driver of Maruthi van bearing Registration No.KA-53-M-6023 who drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed. When the driver of Maruthi van tried to overtake Scorpio Car which was ahead of it, the van hit Scorpio car and consequently turtled and rolled towards the right side of the road in front of

¶129

12 -

¶130

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶131

APSRTC bus, which was coming from other side. On witnessing the incident, the driver of APSRTC stopped the said bus. However, as the bus was heavy vehicle, the same is falsely implicated in the case to get compensation. The charge sheet was outcome of collusion between claimants and the police and compensation awarded in all the cases is on the higher side.

¶132

Submissions of Sri O.Mahesh, learned Counsel for Insurer of Maruthi van bearing Registration No.KA-53-M-6023:

¶133

The evidence on record clearly shows that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus by its driver. On investigation, charge sheet was filed against the said driver. The claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 were injured eyewitnesses. The claimants in those cases deposed that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal committed error in overlooking charge sheet and other evidence on record and imputing 50% negligence to the driver of the van in M.V.C.No.1389/2014. Award in M.V.C.No.1389/2014 against

¶134

the insurer of the van bearing Registration No.KA-53-M-6023 is liable to be set aside and the appeals of APSRTC pertaining to M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 are liable to be

¶135

13 -

¶136

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶137

dismissed. Alternatively the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶138

Submissions of Sri N.Gopala Krishna, learned Counsel for the claimants:

¶139

The charge sheet was filed against the driver of APSRTC bus. So far as negligence in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 the driver of APSRTC bus was not examined. Compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.1389/2014 and M.V.C.No.157/2014 is just one. The compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.158/2014 is inadequate and on the lower side, therefore the same needs to be enhanced.

¶140

On hearing the parties and on examining the records, the questions that arise for consideration of the Court are:

¶141

(i) Whether the findings of Tribunal that the accident in question involved APSRTC bus bearing Registration No.AP-29-Z-1418 and Maruti van bearing Registration No.KA-53-M6023 regarding actionable negligence are sustainable?

¶142

(ii) Whether compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.1389/2014 is just and fair one?

¶143

14 -

¶144

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶145

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶146

(iii) Whether compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.157/2014 is just and fair one?

¶147

(iv) Whether compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.158/2014 is just and fair one?

¶148

Analysis

¶149

Reg. Negligence:

¶150

There is no dispute that on 08.02.2014 at 11.00 p.m. when Venkatachalapathi and the claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 were traveling in van bearing Registration No.KA-53-M-6023 near Alambagiri Cross, Kadapa Bangalore Road, accident took place and in that accident, Venkatachalapathi died and the claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 suffered injuries. It is also not in dispute that regarding the accident, one G.Ashok, relative of Venkatachalapathi filed the complaint before Chintamani Rural Police, on that basis, first information report in Crime No.50/2014 was registered against the driver of APSRTC bus. In the complaint, it was alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus driver. On investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the driver of APSRTC.

¶151

15 -

¶152

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶153

It is contended before this Court that APSRTC bus

¶154

driver was not responsible for the accident and the said bus was not involved in the accident. It was contended that the driver of the van bearing Registration No.KA-53-M-6023 tried to overtake Scorpio Car, so van lost control, turtled and rolled towards the right side of the road, on witnessing on coming van, driver of APSRTC bus stopped the same. Thus he was not responsible for the accident and the bus was not involved in the accident. The first information report produced in the case shows that the complaint was filed on 09.02.2014 at 2.30 hours. If APSRTC bus driver was eyewitness should have filed the complaint, he would have been shown as witness in the charge sheet or he would have given statement before the police. It is no doubt true that charge sheet is not conclusive proof, but it has some presumptive value in view of Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore the burden of rebutting the said presumption was on APSRTC.

¶155

When the claimants in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 injured eyewitnesses deposed that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of APSRTC bus he should have been examined in those

¶156

16 -

¶157

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶158

cases. Bus driver was examined only in M.V.C.No.1389/2014. In the entire crime scene, alleged Scorpio vehicle was not found. Driver of APSRTC bus of examined as RW.1 in M.V.C.No.1389/2014. Though in the chief examination he claimed that he went to the jurisdictional police and reported the accident, no such report/complaint is forthcoming. In the cross-examination, he claimed that though he tried to file the complaint, the police did not register the same and he informed

¶159

the same to his department. But, he says that he did not inform the same to the Higher Officers and he was not able to say what was the registered number of the alleged Scorpio car. He admits that his bus was seized. The photographs of the same were said to have been taken at the spot. As per Ex.P3/IMV report in M.V.C.No.1389/2014, the bus had damages on its right side bumper, right head lamp assembly and indicator, right side body shape and right side corner. These damages were not explained. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.157/2014 and M.V.C.No.158/2014 was just in holding that the accident occurred solely due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of APSRTC bus and the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.1389/2014 was in error in attributing 50% negligence to the driver of the

¶160

17 -

¶161

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶162

van. Therefore the finding in M.V.C.No.1389/2014 to that extent has to be set aside.

¶163

Reg. Compensation in M.V.C.No.1389/2014: (M.F.A. No.8710/2015 & M.F.A.No.7869/2015)

¶164

The Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded compensation of Rs.25,06,350/- along with interest at 8% per annum payable by APSRTC and insurer of Maruthi van. In this case, the claimants contended that the deceased Venkatachalapathi was working as Special Reserve Head Constable earning Rs.35,000/- per month and he was aged 57 years. As per school certificate/Ex.P.10, Venkatachalapathi was born 25.05.1956. The accident took place on 08.02.2014. Therefore as on the date of the accident, he was aged 58 years.

¶165

As per Exs.P8 and P9 at the time of the accident, deceased was working as Special Reserve Head Constable and his gross salary for the month of January 2014 was Rs.27,200/-. Out of that uniform allowance and medical allowance, which were not regular income cannot be considered. Therefore his salary has to be taken as Rs.27,000/- per month.

¶166

18 -

¶167

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶168

As deceased was permanently employed, having regard to his age and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi¹ , 15% has to be superadded to his income by way of future prospects. Therefore his monthly income would be Rs.27,000/+ 15% of Rs.27,000/- = Rs.31,050/-. Thus his annual income

¶169

comes to Rs.31,050/- x 12 =Rs.3,72,600/-. On deducting Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax, his annual income would be Rs.3,72,600/- - Rs.2,400/- = Rs.3,70,200/-.

¶170

As per Finance Act, 2014, income above Rs.2,00,000/- was taxable and applicable tax rate was 10%. Therefore Rs.17,020/- has to be deducted from his income towards income tax. (Rs.3,70,200/Rs.2,00,000/= 1,70,200 x 10% =17,020/-). Therefore his annual income would be Rs.3,70,200/- - Rs.17,020= Rs.3,53,180/-

¶171

It is contended that claimant Nos.2 to 4 being married daughters, 50% has to be deducted from the income of the deceased for his personal expenses. Admittedly, deceased was married to claimant No.1. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

¶172

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶173

19 -

¶174

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶175

Corporation² , 50% has to be deducted only in case of unmarried victims. In the present case, 1/3^rd has to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. Thus his contribution to the family comes to Rs.3,53,180/- x 2/3 = Rs.2,35,453/-.

¶176

It is the contention of Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for APSRTC that the deceased Venkatachalapathi was left with only three years of service and therefore split multiplier has to be applied. In submitting that he is oblivious of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Valli v.

¶177

Tamilnadu State Road Transport Corporation³ wherein relying on its earlier judgments in Sarla verma’s case and Pranay Sethi’s case it was held as follows:

¶178

“11. Thus, we find that the method of determination of

¶179

compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma . Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court in Pranay Sethi.”

¶180

(Emphasis supplied)

¶181

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶182

3 AIR 2022 SC 1096

¶183

20 -

¶184

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶185

Therefore in the light of the above judgment, said submission deserves no merit. For the age of the deceased, applicable multiplier is 9. Therefore compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,35,453/- x 9 = Rs.21,19,077/-.

¶186

As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram⁴ the claimants are entitled to compensation on the head of spousal and parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- with escalation of 10% which comes to Rs.44,000/- x 4= Rs.1,76,000/-.

¶187

As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation with escalation at 10%. Therefore the just compensation payable is as follows:

¶188

Sl. No.	Particulars		Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss ofdependency		21,19,077/-
2.	Loss of consortium		1,76,000/-
3.	Loss ofestate		16,500/-
4.	Funeral expenses transportationcharges	&	16,500/-
	Total		23,28,077/-

¶189

4 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶190

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶191

21 -

¶192

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶193

Claimants are entitled to compensation of

¶194

Rs.23,28,077/- as against Rs.25,06,350/- awarded by the Tribunal. The said compensation shall be payable by APRSTC with interest at 6% per annum. Therefore M.F.A.No.8710/2015 deserves to be allowed in part and M.F.A.No.7869/2015 has to be allowed.

¶195

Reg. Compensation in M.V.C.No.157/2014: (M.F.A.No.1399/2017)

¶196

To prove the injuries suffered, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor as PW.3. Their evidence show that the claimant was treated as an inpatient in Hosmat Hospital for three days and in Rajiv Gandhi Hospital for ten days between 14.02.2014 to 24.02.2014. He had suffered the following injuries:

¶197

(i) Grade III right AC joint dislocation,

¶198

(ii) Multiple rib fracture on right with right scapula fracture with surgical emphysema pneumomediastinum,

¶199

(iii) Contusion posterior and lateral segment of right lower lobe,

¶200

(iv) Bilateral Haemothorax.

¶201

PW.3 assessed the permanent physical disability to

¶202

the whole body at 13%. The Tribunal without assigning just

¶203

22 -

¶204

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶205

reasons reduced it to 12%. The Tribunal considered the income of the claimant at `8,000/- pm., his age as 41 years and applied 14 multiplier. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,15,700/- with interest at 8% pa., on different heads as follows:

¶206

Sl.	Particulars	Amount in
No.		Rs.
1	Pain and sufferings	35,000.00
2	Medical expenses	45,400.00
3	Loss of earning during laid up period	24,000.00
4	Loss of future income on account of permanent disability	1,61,300.00
5	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	20,000.00
6	Attendant, diet, conveyance and other charges	10,000.00
7	Future medical expenses	20,000.00
	Total	3,15,700.00

¶207

Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, the compensation awarded on the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of earning during laid up period, loss of future income on account of permanent disability, loss of amenities and attendant, diet, conveyance and other charges the compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination.

¶208

23 -

¶209

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶210

PW.3 deposed that the claimant needs Rs.90,000/for reconstruction of acromioclavicular joint to improve the functioning of the said limb. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/under the said head, therefore that also cannot be said to be on the higher side. On assessment of the evidence, this Court does not find any ground to hold that the compensation awarded in this case to the claimant is on the higher side. Therefore, there is no merit in M.F.A.No.1399/2017.

¶211

So far as the liability is concerned, already in the connected matter it is held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus. On that count also, the said appeal does not deserve any merit.

¶212

Reg. Compensation in MVC No.158/2014:

¶213

(M.F.A.No.1400/2017 & M.F.A.Crob.No.90/2018)

¶214

The Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded compensation of Rs.16,28,000/- with interest at 8% per annum payable by APSRTC. In this case, the evidence of PW.2 and the doctor/PW.3 shows that the claimant had suffered the following injuries:

¶215

(i) Eye left parietal contusion with mild edema, (ii) D12 burst fracture with paraplegia,

¶216

(iii) Bilateral haemothorax.

¶217

24 -

¶218

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶219

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶220

The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and Exs.P18 and P19 (discharges summaries), Exs.P29 and P30 (out patient record and inpatient record) show that the claimant was treated as inpatient in Hosmat Hospital between 10.02.2014 and 21.02.2014 and in MVJ Hospital between 06.02.2015 and 11.02.2015. The evidence of PW.3 shows that the claimant was wheelchair-bound. He had sustained fracture of fibula and patella. PW.3 further deposed that the claimant had no bladder and bowel control. His evidence further shows that the claimant needed physiotherapy, daily dressing and care for bed sores and catheter. He assessed permanent physical disability of the claimant at 95% to the whole body. In his crossexamination except suggesting that he was not a neurosurgeon, his competence to assess the disability was not discredited.

¶221

At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 25 years and claimed to be an agriculturist. He has produced RTCs in the name of his father. Considering his age, occupation and the evidence of PW.3, the Tribunal ought to have assigned acceptable reasons, if any, that too to deviate from the evidence of PW.3 in reducing the permanent physical

¶222

25 -

¶223

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶224

and functional disability, which is not done. Therefore, that

¶225

finding of the Tribunal does not sustain.

¶226

In the connected matter, the notional income for the said period is already considered as Rs.8,000/- and the same has to be considered in this case also. The applicable multiplier is 18. Future prospects at 40% has to be awarded in addition to the notional income of the claimant. Therefore, his monthly income would be Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/-x40%). Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of loss of future earnings is Rs.22,98,240/- (Rs.11,200/-x 12 x18 x 95/100).

¶227

Considering the medical evidence and the other material on record, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings. Since the medical expenses awarded at Rs.3,06,200/- is based on the evidence, that needs to be maintained. Since 95% permanent physical disability is considered and future prospects is already awarded, the question of again awarding compensation on the head of loss of income during laid up period does not survive.

¶228

26 -

¶229

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶230

The claimant has lost control over his body below waist. The evidence of doctor shows that the claimant has lost bladder and bowel control. Therefore, he was on catheter. Hence, awarding Rs.3,00,000/- on the head of loss of amenities would be just and proper.

¶231

The claimant was hospitalized for about 17 days. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- on the head of attendant, diet, conveyance and other charges which needs to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The evidence on record shows that the claimant needs an attendant in future also, as he suffered paraplegia of his body below his waist and needs wheelchair assistance. Therefore, towards the future attendant charges, medical expenses and cost of wheelchair awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- would be just and proper.

¶232

Due to his permanent physical disability and condition, the claimant has suffered loss of marriage prospects and the compensation is not awarded on that head. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand⁵ and Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance

¶233

5 (2020) 4 SCC 413

¶234

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶235

Co.⁶ , h as awarded Rs.3,00,000/- on the head of loss of marriage prospects. The same needs to be awarded in this case also. Therefore, the just compensation to be awarded in

¶236

this case is as follows:

¶237

Sl. No	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Pain and sufferings	1,50,000.00
2	Medical expenses	3,06,200.00
3	Loss of future income on account of permanent disability	22,98,240.00
4	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	3,00,000.00
5	Attendant, diet, conveyance and other charges	20,000.00
6	Future attendant charges & wheel chair	5,00,000.00
7	Loss of marriageprospects	3,00,000.00
	Total	38,74,440.00

¶238

Claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.22,46,440/- (Rs.38,74,440/- - Rs.16,28,000/-) rounded off to Rs.22,47,000/-. APSRTC is liable to pay the said compensation. Therefore, M.F.A.Crob.No.90/2018 deserves to be allowed in part.

¶239

In all these cases, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 8% p.a. APSRTC is service oriented organization and there are no special circumstances to award interest at 8% p.a. Hence, the appeals filed by APSRTC deserve to be allowed

¶240

6 (2022) 7 SCC 738

¶241

28 -

¶242

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶243

only to that extent. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court passes

¶244

the following:

¶245

ORDER

¶246

(i) M.F.A.No.1400/2017 & M.F.A.No.1399/2017 are

¶247

partly allowed.

¶248

(ii) M.F.A.No.7869/2015 is allowed;

¶249

(iii) M.F.A.No.8710/2015 and M.F.A.Crob.No.90/2018

¶250

are partly allowed;

¶251

(iv) Award in M.V.C.No.1389/2014 is modified as follows :

¶252

(a) Petition against Owner/respondent No.2 and National Insurance Company Ltd./respondent No.3 is

¶253

dismissed;

¶254

(b) Petition against APSRTC/respondent No.1 is allowed

¶255

in part;

¶256

(c) The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.23,28,077/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization;

¶257

(d) Respondent No.1 - APSRTC shall deposit the said

¶258

amount before the Tribunal on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶259

29 -

¶260

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015

¶261

C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶262

(e) The order of the Tribunal with regard to

¶263

apportionment and investment is maintained.

¶264

(v) Award in M.V.C.No.157/2014 is modified as follows:

¶265

(a) The claimant is entitled to compensation of

¶266

Rs.3,15,700/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization;

¶267

(b) Respondent No.1 - APSRTC shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶268

(c) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the same digitally to the claimant on furnishing the required documents.

¶269

(vi) Award in M.V.C.No.158/2014 is modified as follows : (a) The claimant is entitled to compensation of

¶270

Rs.38,74,440/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation;

¶271

(b) Respondent No.1 - APSRTC shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶272

30 -

¶273

NC: 2025:KHC:1674-DB MFA No.8710/2015 C/w MFA No.7869/2015 MFA No.1399/2017, MFA No.1400/2017 & MFA CROB.No.90/2018

¶274

(c) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall invest 50% of

¶275

the award amount in FD in any nationalized/scheduled Bank of the choice of the claimant for a period of 5 years and the balance shall be released to him digitally on furnishing the required documents.

¶276

(vii) The amount in deposit, if any, and the trial Court

¶277

records shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶278

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶279

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶280

KSR,ND

¶281

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

The Manager v. Smt Pramila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Smt Pramila

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 R Pavithra Vs Sri Sathyanarayana Prasad H T

Sri Sridhar G Vs the Director Karnataka Government Insurance

Alwyn Peter D Sa Vs Rita Blocilla D Sa

Irshad Vs H.B.Vasu

Sri. Sreenivas Vs the Managing Director

Smt. Gowramma Vs Syed Fakruddin