IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD MFA No.2654/2017 (MVC) BETWEEN:
1. SAVITHRAMMA WO SHEKARAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. SHEKARAPPA S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. LATHAMANI @ LATHA D/O SHEKARAPPA W/O UMESH NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A KAMBAIAHNAPALYA, C S PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT GUBBI TALUK NOW R/A TALEKOPPA VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101 4. T S SHAMALA D/O SHEKARAPPA W/O CHIDANANDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/A JOBIGENAHALLI VILLAGE GANASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE HASSAN DISTRICT NOW R/A TALEKOPPA VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101 (BY SRI RAGHU R, ADV.) AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ... APPELLANTS KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TUMAKURU DIVISION OPPOSITE TO GMS COMPLEX, ASHOKA ROAD, TUMAKURU ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V K NARAYANASWAMY, ADV. ) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.422/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Court of II Addl. District Judge and MACT, Tumkur in MVC 422/2016.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 10.4.2016, when the deceased T.S.Lokesh was returning from Kambaiahnapalya along with his relatives to his native village Talekoppa through NH206 road via Gubbi on his Hero Honda Splendor bearing Registration No.KA-06-ET-9121 and when he reached near Herur village, infront of Krishnappa’s land, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-06-F- 927 came from Nittur side in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Hence, parents and sisters of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support their case, father of the deceased has been examined as PW-1 and one Nagesha has been examined as PW-2 and submitted 21 documents. On the other hand, the KSRTC examined one witness as RW-1, but did not produce any documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,03,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and working as mason and also doing agricultural work and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month which is the on the lower side. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘loss of future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Therefore, since the appellant was 28 years aged at the time of accident, and since he was self-employed, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken 40% of his notional income towards ‘loss of future prospects’, in order to calculate the "loss of dependency". However, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Therefore, compensation under the head "loss of dependency" needs to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the KSRTC submits that even though the deceased claims that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from working as Mason and doing agricultural work, the same is not proved. Moreover, he was not having any permanent job. Therefore, the Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that T.S.Lokesh died in the accident occurred on 10.4.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from working as Mason and doing agricultural work, the same is not proved by producing any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no other option, but to asses the income of the deceased notionally. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by this Court for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2016, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.9,500/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in assessing the income of the deceased as merely Rs.6,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the income of the deceased from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.9,500/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income deducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses is just and proper. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (stated supra), if the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, 40% of the established income should be added to his income as loss of future prospects where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Hence, the compensation under the head of "loss of dependency" needs to be recalculated.
7. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Court of II Addl. District Judge and MACT, Tumkur in MVC 422/2016, stands
8. The KSRTC is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
The apportionment of the amount shall be made in accordance with the directions of the learned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE DM