IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.3213 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.
3. THE CHAIRMAN INTERNAL SECURITY FUND, KSRTC, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE REPT. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE.
2. SHRUTHI D/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, AGED 21 YEARS, STUDENT.
3. SANGEETHA D/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, AGED 20 YEARS, STUDENT.
4. NANDINI D/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, AGED 18 YEARS, STUDENT.
5. SACHIN S/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, AGED 16 YEARS, STUDENT.
6. APPURAJA S/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA, AGED 14 YEARS, STUDENT.
RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE MINORS, REPT. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1.
ALL THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 R/O DODDI STREET,HARIHAR, DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 601.
7. LAKSHMIKANTH S. KOLKAR S/O SHAMARAO KOLKAR, AGED 30 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KA-01-F-7909, HARIHAR DEPOT, DAVANAGERE, R/O HALE HARLAPURA, HARIHAR AND GUTTUR DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 601. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR JADAV FOR ESSKAY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE FOR R1-6; NOTICE TO R7 IS D/W V/O DTD 30.05.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.226/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, HARIHAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.9,48,413/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA 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 assailing the judgment and award dated 13.12.2013 in MVC No.226/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Harihar.
2. Claimants are mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased Manjunath.
3. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Manjunath in a road traffic accident occurred on 26.09.2012.
4. It is stated that on 26.09.2012, when the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle, KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-F-7909 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bicycle of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Harihara and then shifted to S.S.Hospital, Davanagere. The deceased Manjunath succumbed to the injuries on 05.10.2012 while he was under treatment. It is stated that he was working as Coolie and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was aged about 22 years as on the date of accident.
5. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent - KSRTC filed its statement denying the claim petition averments. Further, denied that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver. Further, stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased.
6. Claimant No.1 - Mother of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Respondent No.1 examined RW.1.
7. The Tribunal on appreciating the material placed on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,48,413/- on the following heads with interest at rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit:
Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 8,40,000 2. Medical Expenses 63,413 3. Loss of Love and Affection 15,000 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000 5. Loss of Estate 15,000 Total 9,48,413 While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded 50% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospectus’ deducting 1/3rd towards ‘Personal Expenses’ of the deceased. The respondent - KSRTC aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as well as questioning the liability is before this Court in this appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent - KSRTC. Perused the material placed on record including the lower court records.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in saddling the entire liability on the respondent - KSRTC since the accident had taken place solely due to negligence of the deceased. He further submits that the deceased was coming from cross road and was entering the main road and the deceased ought to have cautious while entering the cross road, but suddenly entered the main road which caused the accident. He relied upon Ex.P.5 - Spot Mahazar and submits that accident had taken place on the Tar road which would establish that the deceased without seeing the movements of the vehicles, entered the main road, hence, the accident had taken place which solely due to negligence of the deceased. Therefore, saddling the entire liability on the respondent - KSRTC was wholly erroneous. With regard to quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was aged about 22 years and the Tribunal could not have awarded 50% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospectus’. It is his further submission that the mother of the deceased is entitled for 40% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospectus’. Further it is submitted that claimant No.1 - Mother of the deceased is the only dependent and his brothers and sisters would not be dependent on the income of the deceased. As such, the Tribunal ought to have taken 50% deduction towards ‘Personal Expenses’ of the deceased. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - claimant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. Learned counsel further submits that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the claimant on the higher side. Further he submits that the Tribunal also committed an error taking the age of younger parent for applying the multiplier. Thus, he submits as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, the appeal requires to be dismissed.
11. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record including the lower court records, the following points would arise for consideration in this appeal.
1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the entire liability on the respondent - KSRTC?
2. Whether, it is the case for reduction of compensation?
Answer to the above points is in the affirmative and negative respectively for the following reasons.
12. The accident occurred on 26.09.2012 involving the bicycle and the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-F-7909 and accidental death of one Manjunath are not in dispute in this appeal. The KSRTC is in appeal questioning the negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased who was riding the bicycle carelessly while entering the main road. It is further stated that the deceased was coming from cross road to enter the main road to proceed towards Harihara. The offending KSRTC bus was proceeding from North to South towards Harihara to Shivamogga, whereas the deceased was coming by bicycle from eastern side to enter the main road of Harihara-Shivamogga. The accident had taken place on the edge of the main road and Ex.P.5 - Spot Mahazar indicates that the road width was 25 feet. When the road width is taken note of, there was no necessity for the driver of the bus to take the bus towards the edge of the road on the left side. Ex.P.2 - Copy of the complaint, lodged by one Jitendra K.G., discloses that the accident occurred solely due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus who dashed to the rider of the bicycle. Moreover, charge sheet is field against the driver of the KSRTC bus. RW.1 is the driver of the bus who would be interested to get rid of allegation made against him and would be interested witness. The respondent - KSRTC has not examined any independent witness to substantiate its contention that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased. Thus, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident had taken place solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus and rightly saddled the liability on the respondent - KSRTC.
13. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding 50% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospects’ deducting 1/3rd towards ‘Personal Expenses’ of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2012, the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side. The Tribunal has added 50% to the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospectus’ and has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH AND OTHERS V/s. RAJBIR SING AND OTHERS (2013 ACJ 1403), for awarding compensation on the head of ‘Future Prospectus’ which is proper and correct as on the date of award. Moreover, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which would offset the award on the head of ‘Future Prospectus’. Further, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the assessed income towards ‘Personal Expenses’ of the deceased. The claimants are mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased Manjunath. Moreover, it is pertinent to state here that father of the deceased had died earlier and deceased was only the earning member. As on the date of accident, the minor sisters and brothers were dependent on the income of the deceased. There was no other earning member in the family. As such, deducting 1/3rd towards ‘Personal Expenses’ is proper and correct. Appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgment and award of the Tribunal. The judgment would not suffer from erroneousness or perversity. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
SD/- JUDGE HA