IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. No.7631/2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAROJA W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. Y.R. POOJA D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 3. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. NINGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.15, MARIGUDI ROAD, GORURU POST AND VILLAGE, MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 008. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI MAHADEVA SWAMY P., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, URBAN DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU – 09. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.145/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this matter is posted for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred by the petitioners- appellants against the judgment and award dated 19.10.2015 passed in MVC No.145/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mysuru.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are referred to with reference to their respective status before the Tribunal.
4. The claimants have preferred this appeal claiming that the award granted by the Tribunal is unreasonable and insufficient.
5. The proceedings before the Tribunal came to be initiated because of a road traffic accident said to have been occurred on 27.11.2014 when one Ramachandra was traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09-F-4955 in Mysuru-KRS Road when the bus came near Sunanda Factory, the driver of the bus before stopping the bus switched on for opening of the door as it was operated by the automated door, because of which, Ramachandra sustained severe head injuries and died at the spot. Petitioners, who claim dependency of the deceased are the wife – Saroja, daughter – Y.R.Pooja and mother – Rajamma, aged 70 years.
6. The deceased Ramachandra during his lifetime was said to be working as security guard in a private factory and was drawing a salary ofRs.9,311/- as per Ex.P.7 and was aged about 55 years. Thus, the claimants presented their claim petition.
7. The respondent – KSRTC is represented by the Divisional Controller, Urban Division, Mysuru.
8. Learned Tribunal quantified compensation at Rs.10,85,800/- and accommodated with the oral evidence of P.W.1, who is the petitioner No.2(daughter) and the documents Exs.P.1 to P.8 and R.W.1 – Chandra, driver of the bus. The breakup for compensation is calculated as under:-
Loss of dependency Rs.9,10,800/- Loss pf Consortium Rs. 50,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of love and affection, care and Protection (Petitioner No.2) Loss of love and affection, care and Protection (Petitioner No.3) Rs. 50,000/-
Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs.10,85,800/-
9. Learned counsel for appellants – claimants would submit that learned Tribunal though granted an amount of Rs.10,85,800/- as total compensation holding that deceased Ramachandra during his lifetime while traveling had not taken reasonable care and caution and he died because of his contribution to a percentage of 20. Learned counsel further submits that monthly income of Ramachandra is unassessed as he was drawing more than what is being considered at Rs.9,311/-.
10. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for respondent – Corporation would submit that compensation that is granted is more than reasonable. In that context, it is to be seen that the accident is of the year 2014 and Ramachandra was working in a private sector. Hence, I find that there is no unreasonableness, or either on the lower side or on the higher side in assessing the salary and the monthly income of the deceased and it does not call for interference. Hence, the compensation of Rs.9,10,800/- awarded towards loss of dependency is maintained.
11. I am of the considered view that the amount under conventional heads deserve to be fixed at Rs.70,000/- instead of RS.1,75,000/- and accordingly it is done.
12. In the circumstances, I find that deduction of 20% for contributory negligence of Ramachandra does not appear to be just and proper and the same is set aside.
13. Thus, the modified compensation would be as under:-
Loss of dependency Rs.9,10,800/-
Conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- Rs.9,80,800/-
Less: Awarded by Tribunal Rs.8,68,640/-
Total Rs.1,12,160/-
14. Thus, considering the total amount of compensation, it gets increased and the appeal deserves to be allowed in part and the compensation payable to the appellants by the respondent – Corporation stands increased by Rs.1,12,160/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
15. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 26/04/2016 passed in MVC No.145/2015 is modified by setting aside 20% contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal and awarding Rs.9,80,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Respondent - Corporation is directed to pay the compensation with interest amount to the claimants within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs