IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 : BEFORE :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR M.F.A.NO. 3176 OF 2017 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.3891 OF 2017 (MV) M.F.A.NO.3176 OF 2017 (MV) Between:
1. Smt. Siddamma, Aged 51 years, W/o. Late Thimmaiah.
2. Hanumantharayappa, Aged 27 years, S/o. Late Thimmaiah.
3. Ramakka, 24 years, D/o. Late Thimmaiah.
4. Nagarathnamma, 22 years, D/o. Late Thimmaiah.
All are residents of Hosakere, I.D. Halli Hobli Madhugiri Taluk Tumakuru District.
... Appellants (By Mr. Patel D. Karegowda, Advocate) And:
The Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Tumakuru Division Tumakuru Depot.
(By Mr. K. Nagaraja, Advocate) ****** ... Respondent This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 02/01/2017 passed in MVC No. 200/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madhugiri, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
M.F.A.No.3891 OF 2017 (MV) Between:
The Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Tumkur Division Tumkur Depot.
(KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-06/F-852) Now through Chief Law Officer KSRTC, Bangalore.
(By Mr. K. Nagaraja, Advocate) And:
1. Smt. Siddamma, W/o. Late Thimmaiah Aged about 51 years.
2. Sri. Hanumantharayappa S/o. Late Thimmaiah ... Appellant Aged about 27 years.
3. Smt. Ramakka, D/o. Late Thimmaiah, Aged about 24 years.
4. Smt. Nagarathnamma, D/o. Late Thimmaiah, Aged about 22 years.
All are R/o. Hoskere village, I.D. Halli Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk.
... Respondents (By Mr. Patel D. Karegowda, Advocate for R1 to R4) ***** This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated: 02/01/2017 passed in MVC No. 200/2014 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT Madhugiri, awarding compensation of Rs.11,21,800/- with cost and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
These MFAs coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T Though the aforesaid appeals are posted for Admission, they are taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the claimants and also the learned counsel for KSRTC, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The factual matrix of these two appeals are as under:-
On 12-05-2014, the deceased had been to Vaddarahatti to see his sister-in-law and on 13-05- 2014, at about 5:30 am, the deceased Nagesh was proceeding near Guptha College, Agali in his Hero Splender Pro bearing No.KA-06/EL-240 on the left side of the road, at that time, one KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-06/F-852, which is the offending vehicle came from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rider of the motor cycle. As a result, the rider of the motor cycle sustained injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot.
3. Subsequently, the claimants have filed the claim petition before the Court of Senior Civil Judge & M.A.C.T., Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short), by urging their various contentions and seeking for a compensation in a sum of `20.00 lakhs, on account of the death of the deceased Nagesh in the road traffic accident.
4. In pursuance of the notice in the claim petition, the KSRTC has entered its appearance and filed its objections in detail by resisting the contentions taken by the claimants in their claim petition.
5. The grounds which are taken by the KSRTC in the Statement of Objections filed by them are that on 13-05-2014, when the KSRTC Bus was being driven by its driver in a normal speed, on the left side of the road, at about 5:30 a.m., in the wee hours, the rider of the motor cycle came from the opposite side at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC Bus and caused damage to the KSRTC Bus also. Therefore, it is the case of the KSRTC that the accident occurred wholly on account of the rash and negligent riding by the deceased rider of the motor cycle.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimants examined the mother of the deceased Nagesh as PW1 and examined PW2 – Gangadhar, S/o. Venkateshappa, the eye witness to the accident and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 in order to establish their case against the KSRTC for seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased Nagesh. The KSRTC did not lead any evidence, but got marked Ex.R1, which is the paper cutting about the news of the accident.
7. The Tribunal after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and after evaluating the entire material on record, was pleased to pass the impugned judgment and award, granting a sum of `11,21,800/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal in M.F.A.No.3176/2017, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation of `11,21,800/- awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and being aggrieved by the very same judgment and award, the KSRTC has come up in appeal in M.F.A.No.3891/2017, seeking to set aside the same or to modify the same, reducing the compensation.
9. The learned counsel appearing for claimants, Mr. Patel D. Karegowda submitted that the claimants are the mother, brother and sisters of the deceased Nagesh, who was the only bread winner in the family and on account of his unnatural death, the claimants are under severe financial crisis and the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants while considering the monthly income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2014 and the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at `6,000/- is on the lower side. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for KSRTC, Mr. K. Nagaraj, drawing the attention of the Court towards Ex.P7, sketch, submitted that the KSRTC Bus was coming from Agali towards Sira and the deceased Nagesh who was riding the motor cycle was proceeding towards Agali. The spot of the accident is shown extremely towards the left side of the road, i.e. in the direction of Agali to Sira in which direction, the KSRTC Bus was proceeding. Therefore it is clear that the accident has occurred due to the negligent riding by the deceased rider of the motor cycle. Further PW2 – Gangadhara, who is examined as eye witness, in the cross examination has stated that he has not personally witnessed the accident but came to the spot after the occurrence of accident.
11. Further, learned counsel for KSRTC submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal at `11,21,800/- is also exorbitant and on the higher side and liable to be reduced for the reason that the dependent on the deceased Nagesh was only his mother, i.e. claimant No.1 and other claimants are all married and not dependent on the income of the deceased Nagesh. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified.
12. The Tribunal, after critical analysis of the oral and documentary evidence has recorded a clear finding of fact at internal page 7 para.12 holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bus belonging to KSRTC. Therefore, I do not find any justification or good ground to interfere in the said finding of fact by the Tribunal.
13. So far as quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is concerned, it can be seen that the claimants have stated that the deceased Nagesh was earning a sum of `10,000/- per month by doing mason work and also milk vending and was contributing the entire sum to the welfare of the family. In the absence of any oral and documentary evidence, considering the year of accident, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at `6,000/-, which is just and proper and does not call for interference.
14. Further, considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and the only dependent being mother, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% under the head loss of dependency and added 30% towards future prospects relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance company (AIR 2012 SC 2185). The same is also just and proper and does not call for interference.
15. As the deceased was aged about 21 years, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘18’ in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 Sar (Civil) 592), which is just and proper and does not call for interference.
16. Taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. N. Srinivasa (ILR 2000 KAR.2829) and also in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by Tribunal under various heads is just and proper and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.
17. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants in M.F.A.No.3176/2017 as also the appeal filed by the KSRTC in M.F.A.No.3891/2017 are liable to be rejected and are accordingly rejected.
The impugned judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge & M.A.C.T., Madhugiri, in M.V.C.No.200/2014 dated 02/01/2017 is confirmed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The amount deposited by the appellant – KSRTC in M.F.A.NO.3891/2017 shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith along with the LCRs.
SD/- JUDGE BMV*