Smt. Prema Vs the Divisional Controller

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.132/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADDUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

IN MFA NO. 757/2018 BETWEEN:

¶31

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, MANDYA DIVISION, 1^ST FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND, MANDYA - 571401, (KSRTC BUS BEARING REG NO.KA-09/F-5077), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027

¶32

...APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

AND:

¶37

SMT. PREMA W/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶38

SHARATH S/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶39

GIRISHA S/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶40

GIRIJA D/O LATE SANNAPPA W/O RAMALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶41

ALL ARE RESIDING AT RAMPURA VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI L. RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; R-3 & R-4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶44

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.132/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.11,64,700/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶45

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

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶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 the learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals.

¶52

MFA No.9122/2017 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.08.2017 passed in MVC No.132/2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal') whereas, MFA No.757/2018 is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of quantum of compensation.

¶53

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶54

to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶58

The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Sannappa. On 08.01.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased and one Krishna were riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-11/EB-3043 rode by one Abhishek and when the said motorcycle reached the KSRTC Bus Stand, Maddur Town on Mysuru-Bengaluru Road, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-09/F-5077 came from Mysuru side in a very rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle causing the accident as a result of which, all the three persons in the motorcycle fell down and the motorcycle was damaged. The deceased Sannappa sustained fatal injuries to head and other parts of the body and became unconscious. The said Krishna and Abhishek also sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased Sannappa was taken to the General Hospital, Maddur and

¶59

was then shifted to the District Hospital, Mandya. But, on the way near to the hospital, he succumbed to the

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

injuries. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶63

In order to prove their case, the claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.14 whereas, the Corporation examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked the documents as per Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.

¶64

The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition awarding a total compensation of Rs.11,64,700/with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

¶65

petition till its realization and directed the Corporation to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of the judgment.

¶66

Sri Raja L, learned counsel for the

¶67

appellants/claimants in MFA No.9122/2017 contended that

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

the Tribunal, without considering the oral and

¶71

documentary evidence on record, has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,825/- per month which is on lower side. In fact, the deceased was an agriculturist, sericulturist and was also doing milk vending business prior to the accident. He was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has not considered this aspect. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶72

Sri F.S. Dabali, learned counsel for the

¶73

appellant/Corporation in MFA No.757/2018 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased at 50 years based on the postmortem report. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 and the same has to be reduced to 9. Further, though

¶74

there are four claimants in the claim petition, in fact, claimant No.4 is a married daughter and she is not dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence, 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards

¶75

his personal expenses while assessing the loss of

¶76

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

dependency. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the future prospects at 30%. In view of the

¶79

prima facie case, for the age group between 50 to 60 years, 10% of the future prospects has to be taken into consideration. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶80

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the original records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration in these appeals:

¶81

"Whether the quantum of

¶82

compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶83

is just and reasonable or does it call for

¶84

interference or reduction?"

¶85

In these appeals, the Corporation has not disputed

¶86

the accident in question, the cause of death of the deceased and the liability to pay compensation.

¶87

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,825/- per month which is on the meager side. The accident is of the year 2016. No document is placed on record by the claimants with regard to the income of the deceased. In absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month.

¶90

In the Postmortem Report-Ex.P.9, the age of the deceased is shown as 50 years. Hence, we have considered the age of the deceased at 50 years and the multiplier applicable would be 13.

¶91

The deceased died leaving behind his wife, two sons and a married daughter. In fact, married daughter is not a dependent on the income of the deceased and therefore,

¶92

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

appropriate deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 25% of the assessed income has to be taken into consideration towards future prospects since the deceased was self-employed and was between the age group of 50 and 60 years. Thus, the loss of dependency is reckoned as under:

¶95

9,500+25%X12X1/3X13= 12,35,000/-

¶96

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/towards loss of love and affection, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards the expenses incurred for transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding fair compensation under the conventional heads as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

¶97

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED Vs. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS

¶100

reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 and Pranay Sethi 's case ( supra) . The claimants are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/(Rs.40,000/each) towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to modified compensation of Rs.11,09,600/-.

¶101

Loss of dependency	Rs.	12,35,000/-
Loss of consortium	Rs.	1,20,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs.	15,000/-
Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	Rs.	15,000/-
TOTAL	Rs.	13,85,000/-
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.	11,64,700/-
Modified compensation	Rs.	2,20,300/-

¶102

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

In the result, we pass the following:

¶105

O R D E R

¶106

i. The appeals are allowed-in-part .

¶107

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 13,85,000/- as against Rs.11,64,700/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶108

iii. The Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶109

iv. Amount in deposit shall be transferred to the

¶110

Tribunal for disbursement.

¶111

v. Draw modified award accordingly.

¶112

vi. No order as to costs.

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:31677-DB MFA No. 9122 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 757 of 2018

¶114