Smt. Radha Vs the Divisional Controller

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.2.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.117/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

IN MFA NO. 2568/2016

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SMT. RADHA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH @ HIRANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶27

UDAYKUMAR S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶28

TEJASWINI

¶29

S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BEERANAHALLIKERE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201, HASSAN NOW R/AT GOWRI KOPPALU KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶30

...APPELLANTS

¶31

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN, MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE - 575 001 INTERNAL INSURER AT K.S.R.T.C BUS BEARING REG. NO. KA-17-F-1055

¶34

...RESPONDENT

¶35

(BY SMT. RADHA B.P, ADVOCATE)

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.2.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.116/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

IN MFA NO.2567/2016

¶43

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 11.02.2016 passed in MVC Nos.115/2014, 116/2014 and 117/2014. However, MFA No.2567/2016 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.117/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hassan.

¶44

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the both sides. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Brief facts of the case are that, Sri.Thammaiah, met with an accident on 11.11.2013 and died subsequently. His wife filed this appeal for vehicle damage. The petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.2,54,090/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal has not considered actual damages sustained by the appellant. Though the appellant produced bills for Rs.4,40,000/- by examining the PW.3, but the Tribunal has granted the lower amount. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶48

There is no dispute regarding damage of the vehicle in the accident dated 11.11.2013. PW.3 is the surveyor and he stated that the damaged vehicle was of 2010 model, there was 80% damage and it is not worth

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

for repair. He also estimated the total cost of the repair as Rs.4,40,000/-. Thus, he valued the vehicle as on the date of assessment as Rs.3,60,000/-. The petitioner stated that she got repaired it and spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. PW.3 in his evidence stated that the scrap value was Rs.1,10,000/- and thus the actual loss caused due to the damages is Rs.3,60,000/less Rs.1,10,000/= Rs.2,50,000/-. The Tribunal considered the said fact and stated that the petitioner is entitled for actual loss of the vehicle i.e., Rs.2,50,000/- and also a sum of Rs.4,095/towards professional charges for the surveyor. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the total amount of Rs.2,54,095/(2,50,000+4,095) with interest at the rate of 8%.

¶52

Considering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court rightly granted compensation and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed .

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

IN MFA NO.2568/2016

¶56

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 11.02.2016 passed in MVC Nos.115/2014, 116/2014 and 117/2014. However, MFA No.2568/2016 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.116/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hassan, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶57

Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶58

Brief facts of the case are that, Sri.Thammaiah, met with an accident on 11.11.2013 and died subsequently. His wife and children filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.14,70,400/- with interest

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased/Thammaiah, on lower side and has not properly added future prospects. It is further contended that the Tribunal has granted lower amount under the head of loss of dependency as well as the conventional heads. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the

¶62

compensation.

¶63

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that though the notional income is Rs.8,000/- per month, as he met with an accident in the year 2013. The Tribunal considering his occupation, has taken the income as Rs.9,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the deceased/Thammaiah, was the ownercum-driver of the vehicle and was transporting liquor. The appellants also filed Ex.P.12-income certificate issued by the proprietor of Kruthika Wines. But the employer was

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

not examined before the Tribunal. In the said certificate it was stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. There is no dispute that Thammaiah was the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take his monthly income at Rs.12,000/-. The deceased was aged 44 years and the relevant multiplier is '14'. He is entitled for 25% towards future prospects and one third is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,80,000/- (12,000 + 25% × 12 × 14 - 1/3^rd ). As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶67

Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others¹ , petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are each entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National

¶68

1 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶69

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi² , the claimants are also entitled to Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶72

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶73

is as below:

¶74

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towards loss of dependency	16,80,000/-
2	Towards spousal consortium	40,000/-
3.	Towards parental consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3)	80,000/-
4	Towards conventional heads	30,000/-
	Total	18,30,000/-

¶75

Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for

¶76

a total compensation of Rs.18,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶77

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶78

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:33931 MFA No. 2567 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2568 of 2016

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

ORDER

¶83

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶84

ii. The judgment and award dated 11.02.2016 passed in MVC No.116/2014 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hassan, is modified.

¶85

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.18,30,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.14,70,400/granted by the tribunal.

¶86

iv. Respondent/KSRTC has already deposited

¶87

the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent/KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,59,600/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶88