IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.4532/2014 C/W M.F.A.No.2680/2014 [MV] M.F.A.No.4532/2014 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H.ROAD SHANTINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.RANGASWAMY S, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. DODADAPURADA DUNDAMMA W/O LATE MUDINAHALLI SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SRI.M.S.MANJUNATH S/O LATE M SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT V.C. FARM DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.-571 461.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M Y SREENIVASAN, ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1421/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.9,30,640/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
M.F.A.No.2680/2014 BETWEEN:
1. DODADAPURADA DUNDAMMA W/O LATE MUDINAHALLI SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. M.S.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE MUDINAHALLI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O V.C. FARM DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.-571 410. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI SREENIVASAN M Y, ADV.) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, KSRTC BUS STAND MANDYA-571 401. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S RANGASWAMY, ADV.) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1421/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM AND MACT, MANDYA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE M.F.A.s COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Both the appeals are taken up together for final disposal since they arise out of the same judgment and award dated 20.12.2013 passed in MVC No.1421/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience and better understanding, the parties are referred to as they stand before the Tribunal.
3. The appellant-Corporation is in appeal in MFA No.4532/2014 on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is exorbitant and praying for reduction of compensation, whereas the respondents/ claimants are in appeal in MFA No.2680/2014, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and praying for enhancement of compensation.
4. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of Mudinahalli Srinivas in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 26.08.2012, the deceased was traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01/F-7897 and the driver stopped the bus in front of State Bank of Mysore, VC Farm. While the deceased was getting down from the bus through front door, at that time, the driver moved the bus in a very rash and negligent manner, as a result, the deceased fell down and wheels of the bus ran over his left and right foot. Immediately, he was taken to the District Hospital, Mandya, thereafter to K.R.Hospital at Mysore. Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries on 28.8.2012. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident and he was a daily wage worker in the University of Agricultural Sciences, earning Rs.6,672/- p.m.
5. On issuance of notice, the appellant-Corporation appeared and filed its statement contending that the petition itself is not maintainable and also denied the allegation that the accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is stated that the incident took place only due to unhealthy condition of the deceased. It is also contended that Rs.50,000/- towards interim compensation was paid to the claimants and the same may be deducted out of the compensation amount to be awarded in the petition.
6. Claimant No.2 got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The respondent-Corporation examined R.W.1 and R.W.2.
7. The Tribunal, on appreciating the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.9,30,640/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization on the following heads:
1.Loss of dependency :: Rs.9,00,640.00 2.Loss of estate :: Rs. 10,000.00 3.Funeral & transportation expenses :: Rs. 10,000.00 4.Loss of consortium :: Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs.9,30,640.00 While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal awarded 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the exorbitant compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Corporation is before this Court in MFA No.4532/2014 whereas the claimants are in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and praying for enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation and learned counsel for the claimants and perused the material on record including the certified copy of the deposition and documents made available while hearing the appeal.
9. The appellant/Corporation in its appeal memo has contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is stated that the claimants would not be entitled for future prospects at the rate of 30% of the assessed income. It is also stated that the second claimant, son of the deceased is aged about 23 years and he is not a dependant on the deceased. Therefore, deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been taken at 50%. The Corporation has also contended that the Tribunal could not have awarded 9% p.a. interest on the compensation and the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. It is further stated that the Tribunal failed to deduct a sum of Rs.50,000/- paid as interim compensation to the claimants. Thus, prays for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and prays for enhancement of compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.30,000/- on the conventional heads, whereas the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. He further submits that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. He submits that the second claimant son of the deceased was an unemployed and he was wholly depending on the deceased. Hence, prays for enhancement of compensation.
11. On perusal of the appeal memo filed by the Corporation and on hearing the learned counsel for the claimants, the following points would arise for consideration in these appeals:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding 9% interest per annum on the compensation amount?
12. Answer to the above points is in the negative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 26.08.2012 involving the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-7897 and the accidental death of Mudinahalli Sirnivas is not in dispute in these appeals. The appellant/Corporation is in appeal contending that the Tribunal committed an error in adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The deceased was working as daily wager at University of Agricultural Sciences, VC Farm, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk. He was drawing salary of Rs.6,672/- p.m. Ex.P.10 is the salary certificate to substantiate the same. It is submitted that the claimants are not entitled for future prospects at the rate of 30% of the assessed income. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v/s PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5157 at paragraph 61.4 has held as follows:
61(iv) In case the deceased was self- employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”
As per the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the claimants would be entitled for adding 10% of the assessed income towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged 50 years. Thus, the future prospects assessed by the Tribunal at 30% is reduced to 10%.
13. The claimants are wife and son of the deceased.
The appellant/Corporation contends that, since the second claimant son was not depending upon the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken deduction at 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS V/S DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 made it clear that wherever the deceased is married, deduction towards personal expenses always be at 1/3rd depending on the number of family members. The Corporation has failed to establish that the second claimant was not dependant of the deceased Srinivas. There is no material to say that second claimant was employed and was earning. Hence, I am of the view that deduction taken by the Tribunal at 1/3rd towards personal expenses is proper and correct, which needs no interference.
14. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. But, awarding interest at 9% p.a., is on the higher side. The claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a., as per the decision of this Court in VIJAY ISHWAR JADHAV AND OTHERS V. ULRICH BELCHIOR FERNANDES AND ANOTHER reported in 2018 (3) AKR 690. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment reads as under:
14. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the counsel for the Insurance Company for the claimants. It is true that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not Proprio vigor applicable to the procedure and powers of claims Tribunal, except to the extent mentioned in sub-Section (2) of Section 169 of the Act. Sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 169 read as under:
“169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals-
(1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objections and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 15. However, the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Act to the extent they speak of interest payable on the compensation amount is in the nature of an exception to the general law enacted in 169 of the M.V.Act and therefore, the provisions of Section 34 of the CPC to that extent become invocable on the general principles of construction of statutes namely the special law overrides the general law. Therefore, in the absence of any other law relating to interest on judgments, the MACT has to follow the provisions of Section 34 of CPC, 1908. Thus, in the given circumstances of this case, interest at the rate of more than 6% could not have been awarded.
15. Further, the Tribunal failed to deduct a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards interim compensation paid to the claimants by the appellant/Corporation and the same would have to be deducted out the compensation awarded. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads whereas they would be entitled to Rs.70,000/-. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI case makes it clear that wherever the deceased was married, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads and are entitled to the following modified compensation:
1. Loss of dependency including future prospects 6672+10%= 7339 – 1/3 4893x12x13 :: Rs.7,63,308.00 2. Conventional heads :: Rs. 70,000.00 Total Rs.8,33,308.00 Less Rs. 50,000.00 (interim compensation paid) --------------------
Total Rs.7,83,308.00 Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,83,308/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, as against Rs.9,30,640/- awarded by the Tribunal.
17. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 20.12.2013 passed in MVC No.1421/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and MACT, Mandya is modified to the above extent. Thereby the compensation is reduced by Rs.1,47,332/-.
The amount in deposit in MFA No.4532/2014 be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms