IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1513 of 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN :
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. SMT. KALAMMA W/O. LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
2. BHASKAR S/O. LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.
3. SUCHITHRA D/O. LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1, SMT. KALAMMA.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK – 570 008.
4. VENKATACHALA S/O. LATE KARIYAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASATHINALLI VILLAGE, CHINNAKURULI HOBLI, PADMAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
5. HETHE GOWDA S/O. SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
6. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O. HETHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT SALUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 008.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P. NATARAJU FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3, 5 AND 6; RESPONDENT NO. 4 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.10.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.395/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, M.A.C.T., MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.31,49,240/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission and to consider I.A. No.1 of 2019, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent on merits.
2. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.) has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No.395 of 2014 dated 04.10.2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for the sake of brevity) on the question of liability to satisfy the award made by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.
4. The respondent claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the sake of brevity), against the Corporation and its employees seeking compensation on account of the death of Ningaiah in a road traffic accident that occurred on 13.01.2013 at about 6.10 a.m. According to the claimants, on the said date and time Ningaiah was going on the left side of the road near Green Enclave Layout, near Doddahundi gate, Mysuru – H.D. Kote main road, Jayapura Hobli, and at that time K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-4710 which was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit Ningaiah from behind and sped away. As a result of the impact, Ningaiah suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants have alleged that the death of Ningaiah occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.1. The claimants contended that Ningaiah was hale and healthy; he was the sole bread earner of the family and on account of the death, his family was in penury and in agony. Therefore, they sought for compensation on account of the death of Ningaiah.
5. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and filed separate statement of objections. The first respondent admitted that on the date of the accident he was driving the vehicle and possessed a valid driving licence, but denied the fact of the accident. He contended that he drove the bus on 13.01.2013 in the morning at about 5.50 a.m. from Jayapura; that there is difference in the time mentioned about the death of Ningaiah; that there is no nexus between the driving of the bus and the death of Ningaiah.
6. Second respondent denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the bus reported to the office on the said date and it had reached Mysuru via Shivamogga at about 5.00 a.m. and left Mysuru and reached H.D. Kote at about 6.45 a.m. and that the bus was not involved in any accident and neither did it hit Ningaiah resulting in his death.
7. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased Ningaiah, who have filed separate statement of objections admitting the relationship of the claimants with the deceased stating that the deceased was working as a Group-D employee in the judicial department and that they were dependent on the income of the deceased for their livelihood as they had no avocation of their own. They contended that the claim petition may be allowed.
8. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration :
i. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Ningaiah, died in a road traffic accident occurred on 13.01.2013 at about 6.10 a.m. due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-09/F-4710?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum, from whom and what proportion?
iii. What order or relief?
9. In support of their case, the claimants examined Kalamma, widow of the deceased as P.W.1. She produced 14 documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-14. The K.S.R.T.C. examined R.W.2, being the driver of the bus, while R.W.1 is the father of the deceased. Five documents were marked on behalf of the respondents as Exs.R-1 to R-5.
10. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.31,49,240/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization and directed respondent No.2, K.S.R.T.C. to satisfy the award.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant K.S.R.T.C. and learned counsel for the respondent claimants and perused the material on record.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant made a two fold submission. Firstly, he contended that there is no proof of the fact that the bus in question was involved in causing the accident resulting in the death of Ningaiah. He submitted that the bus had arrived at Mysuru from Shivamogga and at about 5.50 a.m. had already reached Jayapura, whereas the accident is said to have taken place at 6.10 a.m. He contended that the bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-4710 was not at all involved in the accident. But the respondent – claimants have erroneously contended that the driver of the said bus had caused the accident. He contended that R.W.2 is the driver of the bus, who has categorically stated that he did not pass through the road near Green Enclave Layout at about 6.10 a.m., as he had already reached Jayapura at 5.50 a.m. and that the K.S.R.T.C. has been falsely implicated in the instant case for the purpose of seeking compensation. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant contended that R.W.2, the driver of the bus in question was acquitted in C.C. No.870 of 2013, and therefore, the said judgment is also in corroboration of the fact that the bus was not involved in the accident.
13. He next contended that the award of interest at 9% per annum is on the higher side. That normally only 6% per annum is the interest awarded by the Tribunal or the Courts in the matter of award of compensation in cases of death, and therefore, this Court may interfere in the matter and scale down the rate of interest.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent claimants contended that the judgment and award of the Tribunal would not call for any interference, that in support of the fact that the bus was indeed involved in the accident and it knocked down Ningaiah, who died on the spot, voluminous documentary as well as oral evidence has been let-in. The Tribunal has appreciated the said evidence in its proper perspective and has rightly fastened the liability on the K.S.R.T.C. The finding of the Tribunal on the said issue would not call for any interference. He further submitted that the award of compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is on the basis of the discretion exercised by the Tribunal which cannot be interfered with in the instant case. That there is no merit in the appeal and the same may be dismissed.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the following point would arise for our consideration :
“Whether the judgment and award of the Tribunal would call for any interference?”
16. The fact that Ningaiah died on 13.01.2013 has been established. The controversy is with regard to the involvement of K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA- 09/F-4710 in causing the death of Ningaiah. According to the claimants, on 13.01.2013 at about 6.10 a.m. Ningaiah was proceeding on the left side of the road by walk, at that time the said bus hit him from behind and as a result he died on the spot.
17. To counter the said allegation, the K.S.R.T.C. has contended that at about 5.00 a.m. the bus had already left Mysuru and at 5.50 a.m. was at Jayapura. Therefore, the said bus could not have hit Ningaiah at about 6.10 a.m. But, in support of the allegation that the very bus was involved in causing the accident resulting in death of Ningaiah, the claimants have produced Ex.P-1 complaint, Ex.P-2 F.I.R., Ex.P-3 charge sheet, Ex.P-4 post mortem report, Ex.P-5 seizure mahazar, Ex.P-6 I.M.V. report, Ex.P-7 sketch and Ex.P-8 inquest mahazar. All these documents have been considered cumulatively by the Tribunal and at paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment and has come to the conclusion that bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-4710 was indeed involved in causing the death of Ningaiah. The said finding on issue No.1 arrived at by the Tribunal is in consonance with the oral and documentary evidence on record. We do not think that there is any ground made out by the appellant for taking a contrary view in the matter.
18. Further R.W.2, the driver of the vehicle was proceeded against in C.C. No.870 of 2013. He faced trial but he was acquitted. The acquittal may be on account of there being no proof beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the accident. The fact that R.W.2, Venkatachala, the driver of the vehicle faced a criminal trial, itself would also indicate that the bus which he was driving was the cause for the death of Ningaiah on the fateful day. The judgment in C.C. No.870 of 2013 is marked at Ex.R-5. Hence, the K.S.R.T.C. cannot at all contend that the bus was not involved in the accident as it did not take any step to challenge the charge sheet nor seek discharge of the driver of the vehicle.
19. As far as the award of interest at 9% per annum is concerned, we find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant K.S.R.T.C. Normally, the Tribunals as well as this Court would award interest at the rate of 6% per annum in the case of death of a person in a road traffic accident while granting compensation for the same. The Tribunal has not given any reason as to why interest at the rate of 9% per annum was being awarded. In the absence of there being any reason assigned by the Tribunal, we do not think that the interest must be at the rate of 9% per annum. Therefore, the interest on the compensation of Rs.31,49,240/- shall be at the rate of 6% per annum.
20. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant – Corporation is allowed in part only on the rate of interest.
21. Parties to bear their respective costs.
22. The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
23. In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2019 stands disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hnm