The Divisional Controller Vs Smt Lakshmamma

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., MANDYA DISTRICT UNIT MANDYA, K.R.PETE MANDYA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS HOUSE WIFE.

¶15

VINOD S/O LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶16

BOTH ARE R/AT No.123 S.D. JAYARAM EXTENSION

¶17

MARAKADADODDI VILLAGE

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 402.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R1-LAKSHMAMMA -SERVED R2- VINOD -SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.12.2024 PASSED IN MVC No.475/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,46,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The appeal is filed by the Corporation (KSRTC)

¶28

challenging the judgment and award dated 16.12.2024

¶29

passed in MVC No.475/2023 by Principal Senior Civil Judge

¶30

and MACT, Mandya.

¶31

2. Inspite of service notice, respondent Nos.1 and

¶32

2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶33

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have made claim petition praying to award compensation for the death of

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Basavaiah husband of claimant No.1 and father of

¶37

claimant No.2 in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.03.2023 contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-11/ F-0438. The Tribunal has recorded evidence, appreciating the evidence on record has assessed the compensation and awarded the

¶38

compensation under various heads as under:

¶39

Loss of dependency	Rs.9,50,400/-
Loss of Consortium	Rs.88,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs.16,500/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.16,500/-
Total Compensation	Rs.10,71,400/-

¶40

4. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the

¶41

rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The Tribunal has deducted Rs.25,000/- paid by

¶42

the KSRTC to claimants out of compensation awarded i.e., Rs.10,71,400/-. Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,46,400/- (Rs.10,71,400/- minus Rs.25,000/-) with interest. The Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of driver of the

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

KSRTC bus. The Corporation has filed the appeal challenging the quantum and also liability.

¶47

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶48

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the age of the deceased taken by the Tribunal as 56 years is not proper. Ex.P10 is election ID, wherein age of the deceased is mentioned as 56 years and P.W.1 has admitted that his father applied for election ID card 15 years prior to his death. Ex.R1 is the ration card in the name of claimant No.1 -wife of deceased, wherein her age is shown as 55 years and date of its issue is 19.06.2017. Considering the same, she is aged about 61 years as on the date of accident and P.W.1 has stated that she is 2 to 3 years younger than her husband. Considering the said aspect, the age of the deceased is more than 63 years. Therefore, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal as 9 is not proper. The multiplier applicable is 7. Since the aged of the deceased is more than 60 years, he is not entitled for future prospects. She further contended that

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the accident occurred in the middle of the road and the deceased was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing and the driver –R.W.1 has stated that he applied brake and slowed down his bus and considering the same there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. Ex.R2 -sketch, the accident is shown in the middle of the road. With these, she prays to allow the appeal.

¶52

7. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶53

perused impugned judgment, award and trial Court records.

¶54

8. As per claimants, the age of the deceased is 55 years. The Tribunal considering Ex.P7 –post-mortem report and Ex.P10 –election ID card has taken the age of the deceased as 56 years. Ex.P10 is E-electors photo identity card of the deceased wherein his age is shown as 56 years. The date of issue is not mentioned in the said card. P.W.1 is son of the deceased has admitted that his father applied for election ID 15 years prior to his death.

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Since Ex.P10 is the E-electors photo identity card, it cannot be said that it is applied as 15 years prior to the death of the deceased. As in the year 2008, there was no E-electors photo identity card. Ex.R1 is ration card in the name of Lakshmamma\8/, the wife of the deceased and claimant No.1, wherein her age is mentioned as 55 years and the date of its issue is 19.06.2017. Considering the same, the age of the claimant No.1 –Lakshmamma -the wife of the deceased as on the date of accident is about 61 years. P.W.1 has admitted that the age difference between the deceased and his wife –claimant No.1 is about 2 to 3 years. Considering the same, the deceased might be aged about 63 years or 64 years. In Ex.P7 – post mortem report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 55 years. Considering the above materials on record, the age of the deceased is taken between 61 to 65 years. The multiplier applicable for the said age group is 7. Since the age of the deceased is taken between 61 to 65 years, future prospects cannot be taken into consideration for assessing

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

the loss of dependency. The Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- per month and deducted half of the income. The deceased is married man having wife and son. Therefore deduction is to be taken at 1/3^rd . In view of the same, loss of dependency is calculated as under:

¶61

Rs.16,000/less 1/3^rd =Rs.10,667/x12x7

¶62

=Rs.8,96,028/-

¶63

9. Since the accident occurred in the year 2023, i.e., 06 years after the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N ational Insurance Company Vs Pranay Sethi and Others¹ , claimants are entitled to escalation at 20% on conventional heads. Therefore, claimants are entitled to loss of consortium in a sum of Rs.48,000/(Rs.40,000/- +20% escalation) each i.e., Rs.96,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000/- +20% escalation) and loss of estate of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000/- +20% escalation). In

¶64

1 In AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

view of above, claimants are entitled to total

¶68

compensation under various heads as under:

¶69

Loss of dependency	Rs.8,96,028/-
Loss of Consortium	Rs.96,000/-
Funeral Expenses	Rs.18,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.18,000/-
Total Compensation	Rs.10,28,028/-

¶70

10. The Tribunal has rightly deducted Rs.25,000/paid by the appellant -corporation to claimants as interim compensation and awarded Rs.10,46,400/(Rs.10,71,400/- minus Rs.25,000/-). Therefore, claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,03,028/(Rs.10,28,028/- minus Rs.25,000/-) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment.

¶71

11. The Tribunal has fixed entire liability on the appellant -corporation. The charge sheet Ex.P9 has been filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus for rash and negligent driving of the bus causing the accident. Ex.R2 is the sketch of the spot of the accident and it is in the middle of the road. The said sketch is also part of Ex.P3 –

¶72

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

spot mahazar. R.W.1 is the driver of the KSRTC bus and in his cross-examination he has stated that he saw the deceased/pedestrian at distance of 500 feet. If the deceased suddenly entered the road, the driver of the KSRTC bus ought have applied break. On perusal of Ex.P3, there are no break marks on the spot of the accident. If the driver of the KSRTC bus had seen the deceased - pedestrian at distance of 500 feet, he ought to have avoided the accident if he was driving his bus slowly and

¶75

cautiously. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly held that entire negligence on the on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus.

¶76

12. In view of the above, the following

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶79

ii) The respondents –claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,03,028/as against Rs.10,46,400/- as awarded by the

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:35090 MFA No. 2746 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment/deposit. iii) The appellant -corporation shall deposit the said compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within a period of 06 weeks from this day excluding the amount already deposited.

¶84

iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. v) The share of the compensation as determined by the Tribunal amount among claimants is unaltered. vi) Claimants are entitled to release of entire compensation amount with interest.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶87

DSP

¶88

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

The Divisional Controller v. Smt Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Smt Lakshmamma

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

The Branch Manager Vs Siddalinesh Hasabi @ Siddalingesh Sidramappa Hasambi

Sri. Ravikumar Vs Nachi Enterprises

The Manager Cholamandalam Ms Gic Ltd. Vs Puttarajamma

Sri. Shivaraj. K. S. Vs M/S. Rapid Carrier Pvt. Ltd.

Ranjitha H H Vs Santhosh B

C S Ramesh Vs Divisional Controller K S R T C