IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.375 OF 2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C.
BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION SHANTHINAGAR K.S.R.T.C. OWNER, BANGALORE BANGALORE DISTRICT-560027 NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC BANGALORE.
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI. SIDDAPPA PUTTAKKARA S/O HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC: COOLI.
2. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA PUTTAKKARA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: COOLI.
BOTH 1 & 2 ARE R/O BELEAMALLUR VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT NOW R/O. C/O. CHINNAPPA S/O KULLAPPA PURLE VILLAGE, 1ST CROSS MANJUNATHA BADAVANE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK.
… APPELLANT 3. VASANTHA D/O SIDDAPPA PUTTAKKARA W/O MALLIKURJANA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O. BALEAMALLUR VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
4. SRI. THUKARAM RAO PAWAR S/O LATE RAM RAO PAWAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER BADGE No.486 NANJANAGUDU KSRTC UNIT CHAMARAJANAGARA DIVISION R/O. HOUSE No.271, 7TH CROSS CHAMUNDI HILLS ROAD, J.C. ROAD MYSORE (DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS No.KA-57-F-0879).
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R6 R3 AND R5 SERVED – UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29/1/2019) - - -
… RESPONDENTS This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 19.3.2018 passed in MVC No.-805/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & AMACT-6, Shivamogga, awarding compensation of Rs.15,42,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment & etc.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT The matter is listed for orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2018 passed in MVC No.805/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Shivamogga, wherein the claim petition filed by Siddappa and others came to be allowed in part and compensation of `15,42,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was awarded from the date of petition till payment.
3. In order to avoid overlapping and confusion, parties are addressed in accordance with the rankings held by them before the Tribunal.
4. The proceedings before the Tribunal came to be initiated because of a road traffic accident on 13.02.2016 when the deceased and another were proceeding from Tarikere towards Shivamogga in TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA 17 TR 7428, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA 57 F 0879 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle of the deceased due to which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and later succumbed to death. There was a claim of compensation of `32,00,000/-, by the dependants of deceased Basavaraj. Respondents resisted the claim of claimants contending that the insurer and insured of the other vehicle are not made as parties and deceased himself was rash and negligent resulted in the accident.
5. The learned member has granted `15,42,000/-, with interest and dismissed petition of 3rd petitioner.
6. The appeal is by KSRTC on the ground that the concept of negligence is misread by the learned Member and the total liability is saddled on the driver of KSRTC.
7. In an accident involving bus and TATA Ace, the sketch (made available for perusal) refers that the negligence is more on the part of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling.
8. The deceased was stated to be driver by profession and monthly income is considered at `10,000/-. The Tribunal has also added 40% of the same towards future prospects and considering the marital status of the deceased being single at the time of death, 50% is deducted for personal and living expenses. It is stated that the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident and multiplier of 18 is selected. The compensation awarded on the other heads is `30,000/-. Thus, the following is the break up compensation awarded:
1. Loss of dependency `15,12,000/-
2. Loss of estate ` 15,000/-
3. Funeral expenses ` 15,000/-
Total ` 15,42,000/-
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased was also negligent and infact his negligence only contributed for the accident. The concept of negligence is not a factor that could be based only on the nature of the vehicle which is 16 horse power and so on. The impact of the vehicle, the force and the velocity are also to be considered. A criminal case is stated to have been registered against the driver of KSRTC bus. Regard being had to the fact that the appellant – Corporation has grouse against the police and suspected bona fides.
10. Though the claimants were entitled on a little higher side, however, in the circumstances, by treating the compensation as global, an amount of `30,000/- was adjusted. However, considering the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of dependency and the entire compensation could be in the form of global compensation. As I find the compensation awarded is fair, just and proper, there is no need to proceed further. In so far as liability is concerned, it is rightly fastened on the Corporation and it does not call for any interference.
11. Hence, the appeal is rejected at this stage itself.
Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE RV