IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.4555/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, SIRASI DIVISION PIN:581 401.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SHANTHINAGAR CENTRAL OFFICES BENGALURU-560 027.
(BY SRI. K NAGARAJA, ADV.) AND:
1. C.S. LINGAMURTHY S/O LATE SIDDAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MILK VENDING BUSINESS R/O ANCHECHOMONAHALLI VILLAGE KARESANTHE POST SINGATAGERE HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT PIN-577101.
2. ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DRIVER, KSRTC BUS ...APPELLANTS BEARING NO.KA-17/F-1019 BADGE NO. 22052 SAGAR DEPOT SIRASI DIVISION-581401.
(R1 IS SERVED.
R2-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:21.08.2017) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.159/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.92,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The respondent/KSRTC is in appeal, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 03.03.2015 in MVC No.159/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaduru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of a cow of the claimant in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 30.07.2010 after grazing the Sindhi cow, the claimant was taking the cow to feed water. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA- 17/F-1019 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the Sindhi cow, due to which, the cow sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Immediately, the cow was shifted to Veterinary Hospital at Mathighatta whereby the Doctor declared the cow dead. It is stated that the said Sindhi cow was fetching 24 liters of milk per day and the claimant was getting income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. from milk vending. The value of the said cow was Rs.40,000/- and it was aged 6½ years and was pregnant for 8½ months calf. Due to the death of the cow, the claimant has lost his future earnings.
3. On issuance of notice to the respondents, the KSRTC appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections. The respondent in their statement denied the claim petition averments. It is stated that the driver of the KSRTC bus was driving the bus slowly and the claimant, who was grazing Sindhi cow suddenly brought the said cow to the middle of the road which was the cause for accident. It is also stated that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant himself. Value of the cow and income earned from the cow is denied by the respondent/ Corporation.
4. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The respondent/Corporation also examined R.W.1, but no documents were marked.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, on the following heads:
1. Loss of Sindhi cow :: Rs. 22,000/-
2. Transportation :: Rs. 5,000/-
3. Loss of income :: Rs. 60,000/-
4. Mental agony :: Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs. 92,000/-
The respondent/Corporation, aggrieved by awarding excess compensation is before this Court in this appeal, praying reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
Respondent No.1 even though served with court notice remained unrepresented.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in granting compensation on the head of loss of Sindhi Cow and also awarding compensation on the head of loss of income. It is his submission that the claimant states that he was earning a sum of Rs.9,259/- p.m., by selling milk whereas the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.5,000/- p.m. It is his submission that the claimant would incur expenditure for providing food and fodder to the cow which would be more than 50% of the income. Thus, prays to reduce the income assessed by the Tribunal. It is also his submission that the Tribunal having awarded compensation on the head of loss of income from Sindhi Cow could not have granted compensation on the head of loss of income. Thus, prays for allowing the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation, the only point which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to “whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation?”
9. Answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 30.07.2010 involving the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-17/F-1019 and death of the cow belonging to the claimant is not in dispute. The appellant/ Corporation is in appeal, being aggrieved by awarding excess compensation. It is stated that the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.5,000/- p.m., and has awarded Rs.60,000/- on the head of loss of income. Ex.P10-the card issued by the Milk Co-operative Society indicates the milk supplied by the claimant everyday for the month of May 2010. Ex.P10 would also indicate the total amount received by the claimant as Rs.9,259/-. Out of the said amount, the Tribunal was of the opinion that minimum of Rs.4,000/- would be necessary towards expenses of the Cow for providing food and fodder and has assessed the income from the cow at Rs.5,000/- p.m. But, I am of the view that apart from food and fodder expenses, the claimant would have incurred expenses for transportation and maintenance of the cow. Therefore, the expenses could be taken at 50% of the total income received by the claimant. Thus, the income could be taken at Rs.4,500/- p.m., instead of Rs.5,000/- p.m., as assessed by the Tribunal.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant would not be entitled for compensation on the of head mental agony is liable to be rejected. The claimant in his evidence states that he was wholly depending upon the income earned by vending milk from the cow. The sudden death of the cow would have affected the income of the claimant and hence, he would have suffered mental agony. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- on that head. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for compensation on the head loss of income taking Rs.4,500/- as monthly income for 12 months. Thus, instead of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of income, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.54,000/-. Thus, the compensation is reduced to Rs.86,000/- from Rs.92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 03.03.2015 in MVC No.159/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaduru is modified to the above extent and the compensation is reduced by Rs.6,000/-.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms