IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.4748/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE BHAVANA, K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ..APPELLANT (BY SRI N KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SMT YASHODAMMA W/O LATE RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 2 . SRI D R MADHU S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA R/O DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 3 . SMT ASHA D/O LATE RAJEGOWDA W/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O HONNAVALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT -573201 4 . SMT BHAVANI D/O LATE RAJEGOWDA W/O MOHANKUMAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O THATTEKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT -573201 5 . SRI HARISH H B S/O BASAPPA H K R/O HULIKERE VILLAGE & POST KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101 ..RESPONDENTS (BY SMT D K KAMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.141/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,86,684/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for orders as learned counsel are present, appeal is taken up for final disposal.
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 21.01.2019 passed in MVC No.141/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.8,86,684/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization came to be granted to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award corporation has come up in appeal.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The facts leading to initiating proceedings are that on 19.10.2017 at about 7 P.M. Rajegowda was returning to his house from Channarayapatna town and when he was coming near Dandiganahalli gate by crossing the road towards right side, at that time, driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-18-F-643 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against said Rajegowda because of which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them.
4. It is stated that deceased-Rajegowda was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from agricultural work and carpentry work and earning Rs.10,000/- from animal husbandry.
5. Respondent-corporation filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and disputed the income and stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of said bus and that the deceased was aged more than 65 years as on the date of accident.
6. The matter was tried on relevant material and compensation is granted as per the following break up:
SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
7. The details of the case of deceased are he was a Carpenter, aged 54 years as on the date of accident and claimants are Yashodamma, wife of deceased Rajegowda, aged 45 years and D.R.Madhu, son of deceased Rajegowda aged 34 years and Smt.Asha, aged 32 years and Smt.Bhavani, aged 30 years, daughters of deceased Rajegowda.
8. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the claimants do not come within the meaning of dependants.
9. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the contention of the learned counsel for appellant. Further counsel for appellant would submit that compensation granted is on the higher side which is refuted by the learned counsel for respondents.
10. Monthly income is considered as Rs.7,500/- and that the future prospects is considered at 10%, by virtue of four dependants 1/4th is deducted towards personal and living expenses. Thus, towards conventional heads Rs.70,000/- is granted and the claim petition came to be disposed of by granting compensation of Rs.8,86,684/-.
11. Dependency is a factor which is dependent purely on existing state of affairs. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant that son and two daughters who are major and married they are disentitled for compensation. No material or circumstances is placed before the court to believe the version. Moreover there is no dispute of dependency in respect of claimant No.2. Considering the circumstances, mode of assessment of compensation, I find what is granted is fair, just and equitable. Appeal does not require further proceedings and it is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN