IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.7524/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU- 27.
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, BANGALORE.
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA K, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKAT REDDY @ REDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI @ LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O LATE VENKAT REDDY @ REDDAPPA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 3. V AYYAPPA S/O LATE VENKAT REDDY @ REDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ...APPELLANT 4. SMT. ANITHA W/O SUBRAMANI D/O LATE VENKAT REDDY @ REDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT SEEGENAHALLI VILLAGE MULABAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563131.
5. SMT. KAVITHA W/O MUNIYAPPA D/O LATE VENKAT REDDY @ REDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT GOWDATHANAGADDA VILLAGE SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563135.
6. T V VENKATAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
7. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O T V VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
THE RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 3, 6 & 7 ARE R/AT J V COLONY VILLAGE J THIMMASANDRA POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-5631135.
8. SRI. AMZAD PASHA S/O CHOTA SAB AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.654/2 AQSAMAZID ROAD RAHAMATHNAGAR KOLAR – 553101.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R7 NOTICE TO R8 IS D/W) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6250/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 23RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 21ST ACMM, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.14,87,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant - Corporation is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.06.2015 passed in MVC No.6250/2012 on the file of XXI ACMM, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Venkatareddy @ Reddappa in a Road Traffic Accident. It is stated that on 11.08.2012 when the claimant was proceeding in his Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-08-L-5518 on Chinthamani- Srinivasapura Road, a KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.40-F-
705 came in a rash, negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased, due to the impact he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was working as a coolie, he was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. He was aged 40 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of summons the 1st respondent appeared before the tribunal and filed its written statement and denied that the accident occurred because of negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus. Respondent No.2 remained absent before the Tribunal. The claimant No.3 examined himself as PW.1 and marked the documents Exs.P1 to P8. Respondents examined RW.1 and marked the documents Exs.R.1 to R9. The tribunal on appreciating the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.14,87,800/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on the following heads :-
Total Rs.14,87,800/-
4. While awarding the above compensation the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and saddled liability on the 1st respondent - Corporation. The 1st respondent - Corporation aggrieved by saddling of the entire liability on it without considering the contributory negligence and aggrieved by the quantum of compensation is before this Court in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - KSRTC and learned counsel for the respondents – claimants. Perused the entire material on record including the LCR.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant - KSRTC would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle i.e., negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. He submits that the deceased Venkatareddy @ Reddappa came to the right side of the road and dashed to the KSRTC Bus and pointed out to the photographs produced at Exs.R-4 to 9. He submits that the accident had taken place because of negligent riding of the Motor Cycle by the deceased. Therefore, he submits that the deceased had also contributed negligence towards the occurrence of the accident. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal instead of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased has deducted 1/5th. It is his further submission that the dependants are claimant Nos.1, 6 and 7. Claimant No.1 is wife of the deceased and claimant Nos.6 and 7 are the parents of the deceased. The other claimants are married daughters and major son, who are not dependant on the deceased. Thus he submits that deduction ought to be made at 1/3rd and not 1/5th as deducted by the Tribunal. It is his further submission that the claimants would be entitled to only Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads, whereas the Tribunal has awarded more than Rs.2,50,000/- which is to be reduced to Rs.70,000/-. Thus he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- claimants submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which needs no interference. It is his submission that accident occurred solely due to the negligence by the driver of the KSRTC Bus and the Tribunal has rightly fastened the entire liability on the 1st respondent - KSRTC. Further the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the claimants were dependent on the deceased and as such the Tribunal has rightly taken deduction at 1/5th taking the dependants as 7. Thus he prays for retaining the deduction at 1/5th. It is his further submission that the claimants would be entitled for filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v/s NANU RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2018 ACJ 2782.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration:-
a. Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the entire liability on respondent No.1 - Corporation ?
b. Whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses ?
c. Whether the claimants would be entitled to only Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads ?
Answer to point (a) would be in the affirmative and point (b and c) in the negative respectively for the following reasons :-
The occurrence of the accident on 11.08.2012 involving Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-08-L-5518 and the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F-705 and the accidental death of one Venkatareddy @ Reddappa is not in dispute in this appeal. The respondent- Corporation is in appeal challenging the saddling of entire liability on it and also with regard to the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant - Corporation submits that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the Motor Cycle relying upon Exs.R-4 to R9 - the photographs. The contention of the appellant - Corporation cannot be appreciated as the photographs are clicked subsequent to the accident, when the bus was stationed on the left side of the road. The photographs points out the spot of accident. Sketch is not produced. The Tribunal based on the evidence of PW.1, RW.1 and Ex.P3 – the mahazar, Ex.P4 - the IMV report has rightly concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus. Ex.P3 – the mahazar would indicate that the road was 18 feet width and the bus was stationed 30 ft away on western side. Ex.P2 – the complaint would indicate that the KSRTC bus, which was coming from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle. The IMV report would also indicate that the right side of the bus was damaged, from which it could be inferred that the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Thus the tribunal is justified in saddling the entire liability on the respondent - Corporation. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The Corporation has not challenged the same, but the corporation has challenged the deduction of 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and claimant Nos.6 and 7 are the parents of the deceased. claimant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. Claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the married daughters and claimant No.3 is the major son. Married daughters and major son cannot be said to be dependents. There were three dependents as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal ought to have taken the deduction towards personal expenses at 1/3rd. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on conventional heads, whereas the claimants would be entitled for Rs.70,000/-
on conventional heads. The claimant Nos.6 and 7 who are the parents of the deceased would be entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCAE COMPANY LIMITED v/s NANU RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2018 ACJ 2782. Thus the claimants would be entitled to the following modified
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent. The claimants are entitled to reduced compensation of Rs.11,58,000/- as against Rs.14,87,800/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms