IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6255 of 2017 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.288 of 2019 (MV) IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6255 of 2017 BETWEEN :
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . VENKATESH GUPTA S/O.Y.RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2 . C.RAMALAKSHMI W/O.VENKATESH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3 . VAMSHI KRISHNA.V S/O.VENKATESH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ALL R/O J.J.NAGAR, PAVAGADA ROAD, 2ND CROSS, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 522. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.4.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1156/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.23,94,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND ETC., MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.288 of 2019 BETWEEN :
1. SRI.VENKATESH GUPTA S/O.Y.RAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2 . C.RAMALAKSHMI W/O.VENKATESH GUPTA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3 . VAMSHI KRISHNA.V S/O.VENKATESH GUPTA ALL ARE RESIDING AT J.J.NAGAR, PAVAGADA ROAD, 2ND CROSS, CHELKERE TOWN. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C DEPOT K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.04.2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1156/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC., THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JYOTI MULIMANI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though these appeals are listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. MFA.No.6255/2017 is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “KSRTC” for the sake of convenience), while MFA.No.288/2019 is filed by the claimants both assailing the judgment and award of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for the sake of convenience) on 19/04/2017, in MVC.No.1156/2016 being aggrieved by the 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 Nos.1 and 2 are the parents and claimant No.3 is the brother of deceased – Chethan Kumar, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 30.07.2015 at about 6.45 p.m. It is the case of the claimants that when deceased –Chethan Kumar was riding motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-41-L-4334 on the extreme left side of Swamy Vivekananda road, slowly and cautiously, observing the traffic rules and when he reached near Halasur Metro Station, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-07-F-1595, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, without observing any traffic rules and regulations, came and dashed against the motor cycle of the Chethan Kumar. Due to the impact, he fell down and the wheel of the bus ran over his head. As a result, Chethan Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the spot. After that post mortem examination was conducted, his body was handed over to the family members and thereafter, funeral and obsequies ceremonies were performed. That on account of the untimely death of Chethan Kumar, the family had lost his earnings and his love and affection. Hence, they sought compensation on various heads.
5. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, respondent appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claim petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. It was contended that the petition is not sustainable in law or on facts and that there was no nexus between the accident in which the deceased is alleged to have died and the bus in question, as the bus in question was driven by its driver slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road by observing traffic rules and regulations and while so proceeding near Halasur on Vivekananda road at Metro Railway station under-pass, public had gathered by the side of the road and vehicles were proceeding at a snail’s speed and when the driver of the bus enquired the reason for the public gathering, he was informed by one of the persons that there was an accident, but unfortunately when the bus was proceeding near Halasur Police Station, Police forcibly stopped the bus alleging that the bus had caused the accident and falsely implicated the bus and foisted a false case and that no liability could be fastened on the appellant - KSRTC. It was further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant. Hence, respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Chetan Kumar, son of Venkatesh Gupta, died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 30.07.2015 at about 6.45 p.m. on Swamy Vivekananda road, near Halasoor Metro Station down, Bangalore, arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-07-F-1595?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate their case, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and they produced ten documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10, while respondent examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and produced two documents which were marked as Exs.R1 and R.2.
8. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, both KSRTC as well as the claimants have preferred their respective appeals seeking reduction in the compensation and enhancement thereof respectively.
9. We have heard Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the appellant – KSRTC and, Sri. N.R.Naik, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law, as the award of compensation is exhorbitant and excessive. She further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has erred in relying upon Ex.P.9 which is a copy of the appointment letter, since the same is not proved by cogent evidence and that the employer has not been examined in support of Ex.P9. The Tribunal has erred in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects, in as much as the dependents being the parents of the deceased, the addition of future prospectus to the extent of 50% is erroneous. Next, she contended that claimant No.3, being a major brother, cannot be considered as a dependent. The adoption of multiplier is also not correct. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant / KSRTC submitted that the award of Rs.22,44,000/- towards ‘loss of dependency’ and Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘conventional heads’ are excessive. Hence, she prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the KSRTC and dismissing the appeal filed by the claimants.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the income tax returns of the deceased filed during the financial year 2013-2014. He contended that the Court below has totally erred in awarding a lesser amount towards ‘loss of dependency’ and also towards other heads and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the material evidence on record. Therefore, among other grounds, he sought for enhancement of compensation. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the KSRTC and allowing the appeal filed by the claimants.
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 amount of compensation being Rs.23,94,000/- that has been awarded by the Tribunal would call for any interference in this appeal? Whether the same requires an escalation or a reduction?
2. What order?
13. There is no controversy that Chethan Kumar, died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 30/07/2015. The claimants have proved that Chetan Kumar died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident arising due to negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No KA-07-F-1595. The only controversy in this appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.23,94,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation on the following heads :
1. Loss of dependency Rs.22,44,000/- (Rs.1,32,000 x17) 2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 3) 3. Loss of estate Rs. 60,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 3) 4. Transportation of dead body Rs. 30,000/- and funeral expenses Total Rs.23,94,000/-
14. Claimants produced the appointment letter of M/s.Team Lease Service Limited which is at Ex.P.9. We have perused the same and it discloses that the deceased was appointed as MIS Executive in M/s.Team Lease Service Limited on a monthly gross salary of Rs.17,299/- . The Tribunal has taken into consideration the same and has held that as on the date of the accident, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.16,160/- after deduction of professional tax, the net salary of the deceased is Rs.15,960/-. But, the tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and the Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects and has awarded a sum of Rs.22,44,000/- towards ‘loss of dependency’, which is contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
15. As per 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, 40% of the income shall have to be added towards future prospects. If 40% of the income is added towards future prospects (to the monthly income of Rs.15,960/-) (40% of 15960=6384) it comes to Rs.22,344/- per month. The deceased was aged 26 years and a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of the income of Rs.22,344/- is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and it comes to Rs.11,172/-. When the same is annualized and multiplied by ‘17’, it comes to Rs.22,79,088/-. Hence, we propose to award Rs.22,79,088/- as against Rs.22,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on the head of ‘loss of dependency’.
16. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company, claimant Nos. 1 and 2, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled for ‘loss of filial consortium’ of Rs.30,000/- each amounting to Rs.60,000/-. Claimant No.
3 being the brother of the deceased is also entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The claimants are entitled for ‘funeral expenses’ of Rs.15,000/-
and for ‘loss of estate’ Rs.15,000/-. The reassessed compensation is as under:
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 22,79,088/-
2 Loss of filial consortium Rs. 60,000/-
3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.23,99,088/-
17. The said compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal, as we find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the KSRTC that normally this Court as well as Tribunal would award compensation at the rate of 6% p.a., excluding the interest for the delayed period.
18. In view of reassessment of the compensation and increase thereof, the apportionment is as follows:
19. 50% is to the mother of the deceased, 40% is to the father of the deceased and 10% is to the brother of the deceased.
20. KSRTC to deposit the balance compensation with upto date interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
21. In the result, the appeal filed by the KSRTC (MFA.No.6255/2017) is allowed in part on the point of percentage of future prospects to be added and rate of interest being reduced to 6% p.a. from 9% p.a.. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.
22. The appeal filed by the claimants (MFA.No.288/2019) is allowed in part.
23. 75% of the compensation awarded to the mother of the deceased shall be deposited in any post office or nationalized bank for an initial period of ten years. She shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to her.
24. 50% of the compensation awarded to the father of the deceased shall be deposited in any post office or nationalized bank for an initial period of five years. He shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to him.
25. The compensation with proportionate interest awarded to the brother of the deceased shall be released to him after due identification.
26. In so far as the parents of the deceased are concerned, the balance compensation, after deposit shall be released to them after due identification.
27. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-
Sd/- JUDGE