IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1079 of 2017 (MV) BETWEEN :
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL DIVISION K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ARUNA W/O.LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 2. VARSHITHA.G.N. (MINOR) D/O.LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED AOBUT 2 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPT. BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN ARUNA 3. BALAMMA W/O.NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. NARASIMHAPPA S/O.LATE NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ALL ARE R/O.D.GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE, D.PALYA HOBLI NAMGONDLU POST GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT–561208.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-2 MINOR REP. BY R-1) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.642/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 28TH ACMM, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.23,32,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AND ETC., THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for orders, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. This appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “KSRTC” for the sake of convenience), assailing the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for the sake of convenience) dated 26.11.2016 in MVC.No.642/2016 being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of the status and ranking before the Tribunal.
4. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the daughter and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of deceased – Narasimhamurthy, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.01.2016 at about 2.30 p.m.
It is the case of the claimants that when Narasimhamurthy was proceeding on a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-40-K-7434 near Ayyappaswamy Temple, B.H.Road, Gowribidanur Town, Chikkaballapura District, at that time KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-07-F-878 driven by its driver at a high speed and rash and negligent manner, hit the two wheeler of Narasimhamurthy. Due to the impact, he sustained multiple fracture injuries. He was immediately shifted to General Hospital, Gowribidanur, but in spite of best efforts and treatment given, he succumbed to the injuries. That on account of the untimely death of Narasimhamurthy, the family lost the sole bread earner and finding it extremely difficult to eke out their livelihood, as they were entirely depending on the earnings of Narasimhamurthy/deceased. Hence, they sought compensation on various heads.
5. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent appeared though its counsel and filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claim petition was not maintainable in law or on facts. It was contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler by the deceased and when the deceased tried to overtake the bus and even though the driver of the bus stopped the bus, the two wheeler touched the bumper of the bus which caused the accident. Further, the compensation claimed was also exhorbitant. Hence, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its considerations.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that death of Sri. Narasimhamurthy is on account of the road traffic accident as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners prove the alleged accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA.07.F.878 as alleged in the petition?
3. Whether the respondent proves that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties to the petition as contended?
4. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent and from whom?
5. What order or award?”
7. In order to substantiate their case, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and she produced nineteen documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.19. On the other hand, respondent examined the driver of the offending bus as R.W.1. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, Issue No.3 in the negative and Issue No.4 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.23,32, 000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.
8. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant - Corporation has preferred this appeal seeking reduction in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
9. We have heard Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for appellant - Corporation and Sri. P.Suresh, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants. We have perused the material on record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. She submitted that the award of compensation is exhorbitant and excessive as the income of the deceased is not assessed properly. It is further contended that the employer of the deceased has not been examined to prove that the deceased was working in M/s. S.K. Garments and was drawing a sum of Rs.9000/- per month and that in the inquest report the occupation of the deceased is stated as agriculturist. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in accepting the statement of the claimants with regard to the occupation of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- per month and has added 50% towards future prospectus which is incorrect. Lastly, she contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering the father of the deceased as a dependant and that the deceased was married and only his wife, child and mother are the dependants and deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should have been 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. Thus, the award of compensation at Rs.21,87,000/- towards ‘loss of dependency’ is erroneous. Accordingly, she prayed to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal and reduce the quantum of compensation to be awarded.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the judgment and award and contended that the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation and submitted that the appellant - KSRTC has not made any good ground to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for our consideration:-
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal would call for any interference in this appeal?
2. What order?
13. It is not in dispute that Narasimhamurthy died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 4.1.2016 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus. It is also established that the deceased was aged about 23 years and the accident occurred in the year 2016 and that he was employed and the notional income of Rs.9000/- has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. However, the controversy is with regard to the compensation awarded on the head of ‘loss of dependancy’.
14. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.23,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization on the following heads:-
Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 25,000.00 Loss of dependency 21,87,000.00 Loss of love and affection 30,000.00 Loss of consortium 40,000.00 Loss of care and guidance for minor children 50,000.00 Total 23,32,000.00 15. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Ex.P12 to show that he was working as a Helper in S.K. Garments and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. But there are no documents to believe the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken in consideration the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016 and hence, notional income of Rs.9,000/- has been taken into consideration. In our view, the Tribunal is right in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- per month.
16. However, the Tribunal is not justified in adding 50% of the income of the deceased towards the future prospects of the deceased. The same is contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Tribunal ought to have taken 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Therefore, in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI,, 40% of the income shall have to be added towards future prospects. If 40% of the income towards future prospects is added to the monthly income of Rs.9,000/-, it comes to Rs.12,600/- per month. The claimants are four in numbers. Therefore, 1/4th of the income is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.9,450/-. When the same is annualized and multiplied by ‘18’, it comes to Rs.20,41,200/-. Hence, we propose to award Rs.20,41,200/- as against Rs.21,87,000 /- awarded by the Tribunal on the head of ‘loss of dependency’ 17. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V/S NANURAM AND OTHERS, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, claimant No.1, being the widow of the deceased is entitled towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’ of Rs.40,000/-, claimant No.2, being the daughter of the deceased is entitled towards ‘loss of parental consortium’ of Rs.30,000/- and claimant Nos.3 and 4, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled towards ‘loss of filial consortium’ of Rs.30,000/-each amounting to Rs.60,000/-. The claimants are entitled for ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ of Rs.15,000/- each. In all, claimants are entitled to Rs.25,52,500/-. The re-assessed compensation is as under:
Heads Compensation awarded by this Court (in Rs.) Loss of dependency (9,450 x 12 x 18) 20,41,200 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000.00 Loss of filial consortium @ Rs.30,000/- each 60,000.00 Loss of love and affection 30,000.00 Loss of estate 15,000.00 Funeral expenses 15,000.00 TOTAL 22,01,200.00 18. On reassessment of compensation, we find that a sum of Rs.22,01,200/- has to be awarded to the respondents – claimants, instead of Rs.23,32,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The reassessed compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
19. The appellant – Corporation to deposit the balance amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
The amount in deposit, if any, to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 is disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-