Mr Victor D Souza Vs the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING] ESTABLISHED AS PER SECTION 3 OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ACT, 1950 HAVING ITS REGISTRED AND HEAD OFFICE AT SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE AND DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT PUTTUR, REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OF KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION, [B.S. ROAD DEPOT], DARBE, PUTTUR - 574 202, D.K. DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

MR. VICTOR D'SOUZA S/O. MR. BOUTHISH D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT. DOOR NO.2-265(1), MARIPALLA, THUMBE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 143, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶20

MS. VISMITHA D'SOUZA D/O VICTOR D'SOUZA AND LATE MRS. CELESTINE D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT. DOOR NO.2-265(1), MARIPALLA, THUMBE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 143, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶21

MS. VINITHA SHEWETHA D'SOUZA D/O MR.VICTOR D'SOUZA AND LATE MRS. CELESTINE D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT. DOOR NO.2-265(1), MARIPALLA, THUMBE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 143, D.K. DISTRICT. (ABSENT)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHWIZ JOYSTON KUTINA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOLITA ZEENA VAS AND RENSPRE PRITESH D'SOUZA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.19.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.622/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT-IX, BANTWAL, D.K, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,41,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS DEPOSIT.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

IN MFA.CROB NO. 85/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

MR. VICTOR D'SOUZA S/O MR. BOUTHISH D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.2-265(1), MARIPALLA, THUMBE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 143, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶29

MS. VISMITHA D'SOUZA, D/O VICTOR D'SOUZA AND LATE MRS. CELESTINE D'SOUZA, AGED 26 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.2-265(1), MARIPALLA, THUMBE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 143.

¶30

MS. VINITHA SHWETHA D'SOUZA D/O VICTOR D'SOUZA AND LATE CELESTINE D'SOUZA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.2-265(1), MARIPALLA, THUMBE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 143.

¶31

...CROSS OBJECTORS

¶32

(BY SRI. ASHWIZ JOYSTON KUTINA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOLITA ZEENA VAS, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING] ESTABLISHED AS PER SECTION 3 OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ACT, 1950 HAVING ITS REGISTRED AND HEAD OFFICE AT SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE AND DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT PUTTUR,

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶36

4 -

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OF KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION, [B.S. ROAD DEPOT], DARBE, PUTTUR - 574 202, D.K. DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶39

...RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶41

THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CPC, 1908 ALONG WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.622/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,IX, PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶42

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4622/2023 is filed by

¶45

the appellant/corporation challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded in Judgment and Award dated 19.11.2022 passed in MVC No.622/2019 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IX, Bantwal, D.K.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed Miscellaneous First Appeal Cross-Objection No.85/2024 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶49

Even though the matter is listed today for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel for appellant/corporation and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, the matter is taken up for disposal.

¶50

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 made a claim petition seeking award of compensation for the death of MRs. Slestin D 'Souza (wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant No.2) in a road traffic accident occurred on 18.11.2018 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2254.

¶51

The Tribunal recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and upon appreciating the evidence on record, assessed the compensation and awarded the compensation under various heads as under:

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Sl.	Head	Amount
No.		(Rs.)
1.	Towards loss of dependency	13,20,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	61,000/-
3.	Towards Loss of Estate, Consortium, transportation of dead body, Funeral and obsequies expenses	1,60,000/-
	Total	15,41,000/-
	Less:Amount paid by the Corporation	3,00,000/-
	Total	12,41,000/-

¶55

The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the

¶56

rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed the appellant/corporation to pay the award amount with interest.

¶57

The appellant/corporation challenging its

¶58

liability on the ground that the deceased was also negligent and contributed to the accident and also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶59

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed Cross

¶60

Objection seeking e nhancement of compensation.

¶61

Learned counsel for the appellant/corporation

¶62

would contend that, the date of birth of the deceased as

¶63

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

per Ex.P16 - Aadhar Card is 15.08.1963 and as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged fifty five (55) years three (3) months and therefore, age is to be taken as fifty six (56) years. He further submits that, the author of Ex.P13 - Salary Certificate has not been examined and no documents are produced to establish the income of the deceased. Therefore, the income taken by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.15,000/- is on higher side. The Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income at Rs.12,500/-. The interest awarded at the rate of 9% is also on higher side. Considering the Bank interest rate and the interest to be awarded at the rate of 6%. He further contended that, the deceased was alighting the bus before it stopped and therefore, she has also contributed to the accident and to the extent of her negligence, the compensation has to be reduced. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶66

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 /Cross Objectors would contend that, considering that the deceased has not completed fifty five (55) years three

¶67

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

(03) months, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of deceased as fifty five (55) years. The Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was working as a Assistant Cook and Cleaner has taken the income at Rs.15,000/-. The deceased was also working as cleaner in the canteen and therefore, the minimum wages for Assistant Cook and Cleaner together in a sum of Rs.11,025 + 10,375 = 21,400/- per month is to be taken. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration future prospects. The claimants are not entitled to 10% future prospects considering the age of deceased as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs.

¶70

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. The Tribunal has deducted Rs.3,00,000/- towards interim compensation and the said amount should not be deducted and also the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. With these, he prayed to allow the Cross Objection.

¶71

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for parties, the Court has perused the Judgment, Award and Trial Court records.

¶74

The charge sheet has been filed against the driver of KSRTC bus for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per charge sheet, when the bus was stopped for alighting passengers and the deceased was getting down from the bus, at that time, the driver of bus started the bus and proceeded further and due to that, accident occurred. Considering the said aspect, it cannot be said that the deceased was negligent and accident occurred when she was alighting from the bus which is about to stop and from a moving bus. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has rightly held that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased and entire negligence is on the part of the driver of bus.

¶75

As per Ex.P16 - Aadhar card, the date of birth

¶76

of the deceased is 15.08.1963 and the accident occurred

¶77

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

on 18.11.2018. Considering the said aspect, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged fifty five (55) years three (03) months. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has taken the completed age of the deceased i.e., fifty five (55) years.

¶80

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S AMSUN

¶81

BEE AND OTHERS vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD AND OTHERS (2026 ACJ 532) had considered the said aspect wherein observed as under:

¶82

“9. On the aspect of multiplier, both the Tribunal and the High Court applied it to be 13. As already observed supra the age was determined as 45 years and 3 months on the basis of marksheet. The question that arises is whether the multiplier to be applied will be 13 or 14, given the categorisation made in Sarla Verma (Supra). The same is reproduced as under for reference, as approved in Pranay Sethi (Supra) .

¶83

“ 42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

place in para 19 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 42 is extracted below : (Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 140)

¶88

“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 9776 of 2025 Page 5 of 12 (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

¶89

As can be seen from the above the multiplier of 14 is to be applied when the age of the deceased person is falls within 41 to 45 and multiplier of 13 is to be applied when the age of the deceased person is

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶91

12 -

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

between 46 and 50. In this case, the age is categorically recorded as been 45 years and 3 months. The question then is whether the higher multiplier would continue to apply till the person has clearly entered into the next age bracket i.e., 46 to 50 or, would the lower multiplier be applied immediately after the day, that the deceased person crosses the threshold of 45 for instance as in the present case. In our considered view, the former is the correct approach. We say so for the reason that, in general parlance when age is described or discussed, the higher number is addressed only when the person attains that particular age. That apart, legally speaking the age is a crucial aspect that has to be taken into account when the Tribunal or higher appellate authorities are tasked with determining the possibilities of future earning of the deceased person. The higher the age the lesser the multiplier. Therefore, keeping in view the overarching principle of just and fair compensation which is to inform each and every computation, application of a lower multiplier right at the higher threshold of the previous one, it has to be held the same would be impermissible. In other words, the high limit of the previous multiplier would be inclusive of the 12 months’ time, till the age of the deceased person is squarely within the lower limit of the next bracket. To illustrate, in case where the age

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

of the deceased person or injured person, is 35 years 11 months, then the multiplier of 16 would apply, instead of 15. The later would only apply once the injured/deceased has positively crossed the age of 36 years, for example if he was aged 36 years and 3 days.

¶98

Considering the said aspect, completed age of the deceased has to be taken for ascertaining the multiplier. The Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as fifty five (55) years and rightly applied multiplier '11'.

¶99

The deceased was aged fifty five (55) years and considering the same and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N ATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the future prospects is to be taken at 10%.

¶100

Ex.P13 - Salary Certificate issued by

¶101

St.Antony's Caterers wherein it is stated that, the deceased was working as Assistant Cook and Cleaner and

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

she was paid Rs.450/- per day as her wages in addition to tips and extra charges. The Tribunal has not taken the said document into consideration on the ground that supporting documents are not produced. The Tribunal considering the age, job and other attending circumstances has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. Since the author of Ex.P13 has not been examined and supporting documents are not produced, the notional income as per chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the said year i.e., Rs.12,500/- is to be taken into consideration. Considering the said aspect, the claimants are entitled to loss of dependency as under:

¶106

12,500 + 10% (1,250) = 13,750 - 1/3^rd = 9,167 X 12 = 1,10,004 X 11 = 12,10,044.

¶107

The Tribunal has rightly awarded consortium in

¶108

a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- considering that the claimant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and daughter and respondent No.3 is another daughter of the deceased. The claimants

¶109

are entitled to loss of estate in a sum of Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses and transportation of dead body in a sum

¶110

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

of Rs.15,000/-. The claimants are not entitled for transportation of dead body of Rs.10,000/- separately as awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly deducted Rs.3,00,000/- out of the total compensation as it is paid as interim compensation to the claimants.

¶113

Considering all the above aspects, the claimants are entitled to total compensation under various heads as under:

¶114

Sl. No.	Compensation Heads		Amount
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.	12,10,044/-
2.	Loss of consortium (claimant Nos.1 and 2 is Rs.80,000/- and respondent No.3 is Rs.40,000/-)	Rs.	1,20,000/-
3.	Medical expenses	Rs.	61,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body	Rs.	15,000/-
5.	Loss of estate	Rs.	15,000/-
	Total	Rs.	14,21,044/-
Less	:Amount paid by the Corporation	Rs.	3,00,000/-
	Total	Rs.	11,21,044/-

¶115

The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of

¶116

9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶117

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

Considering the Bank interest rate, the interest awarded

¶120

by the Tribunal is on higher side and interest to be awarded is at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶121

In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,21,044/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶122

The appellant/Corporation is liable to pay the

¶123

total compensation with interest to the claimants.

¶124

In view of the above, the following:

¶125

ORDER

¶126

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4622/2023 filed by the appellant/corporation is allowed-in-part.

¶127

ii) Miscellaneous First Appeal Cross Objection No.85/2024 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed.

¶128

iii) The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,21,044/- as against

¶129

17 -

¶130

NC: 2026:KHC:33780 MFA No. 4622 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 85 of 2024

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

Rs.12,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶133

iv) The appellant/corporation shall deposit the entire compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from this day (including the amount already deposited).

¶134

v) Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal.

¶135

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶136

KLV

¶137

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Mr Victor D Souza v. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Victor D Souza v. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

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

Rakesh M H Vs B Kare Rangappa

Smt. Sudha Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri.Guruswamy Vs Sri.N.Vasantha Kumar

Sri Mahaveer Khidrapur Vs Sri Ramesh Padiyappa Muttappagol

Sri Mahaveer Khidrapur Vs Sri Ramesh Padiyappa Muttappagol

Mainuddin Vs Sachin Gadade