IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.669/2019 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5220/2018 (MV) IN M.F.A.NO.669/2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.NARAYANAPPA, S/O VENKATESHAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O NARAYANAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. N.MUNIRAJU, S/O NARAYANAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT THOLAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HASANDAHALLI POST, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI.N.GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027.
…RESPONDENT THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.02.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1337/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.5220/2018 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027.
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, BANGALORE.
(BY SRI.K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.NARAYANAPPA, S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, …APPELLANT 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. SRI. N.MUNIRAJU, S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING OF THOLAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HASANDAHALLI POST, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.02.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1337/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,44,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION FROM RESPONDENT.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Both the appeals are listed for orders on I.A., in the nature and circumstances of the case I.A.1/19 in MFA No.669/2019 and I.A.No.1/18 in MFA No.5220/2018 are allowed. Delay of 225 days and 19 days in filing the appeals are condoned. With the consent of both learned counsels, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.
2. Both appeals are directed against the Judgment and award dated 22.02.2018 passed in MVC No.1337/2017 by the I Addl. Small Causes Judge & MACT, (SCCH-11), Bengaluru, wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and an amount of Rs.10,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the deposit came to be granted to the petitioners. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, petitioners and Corporation have preferred these appeals.
3. M.F.A.No.669/2019 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and M.F.A.No.5220/2018 is filed by the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, seeking to set aside the Judgment and award passed by the learned Member.
4. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties hereinafter are referred to with reference to their rankings as it stood before the Tribunal.
5. The facts of the case as revealed from the case papers are that the accident was occurred on 14.12.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. when the deceased by name one Raghu was going towards Malur from Masthi side by riding his Apache motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-70-T- 9049 along with his friend Venkatesh as a pillion rider and the motor cycle was riding slowly. When they reached a place near Byrasandra cross, on Malur-Masthi Road, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA/07-F- 1644 drove it in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road with high speed from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle which was being riding by the deceased Raghu, because of which he sustained serious injuries including grievous head injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The deceased was aged about 20 years and working in a private Company and the claimants are stated to be his dependants filed claim petition.
6. Respondents resisted the claim petition.
7. The monthly income of the deceased was considered by learned Member at Rs.8000/-. The deceased is stated to be unmarried at the time of the accident. The dependants are his parents and brother. In the circumstances, the compensation granted by the learned Member is as under:
Monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.8,000/- and 50% was deducted towards his personal and living expenses i.e., Rs.4,000/- per month. The age of the deceased being 20 and the proper multiplier is considered as 18, thus an amount of Rs.8,64,000/-(Rs.4,000X12X18) is granted towards loss of dependency. Further an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted towards love and affection; Rs.15,000/- each is granted towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the learned Member held that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,44,000/-.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased was the sole bread winner in the family and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, they lost their livelihood. The deceased was stated to be a coolie and earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month. Further he contended that the future prospects was not considered by the Tribunal.
8. Per contra, Sri. K Nagaraja, learned counsel for the KSRTC, would submit that the deceased was not having a valid and effective driving licence to ride the motor cycle and further the compensation granted is on the higher side. He also submits that under conventional heads an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- granted is against to the principles of compensation. Further he contended that the interest granted at the rate of 8% by the learned Member is excessive.
Insofar as the consideration of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- by the learned Member, I do not find there is much fault. However, the deceased was stated to be a coolie and a young man, aged about 20 years at the time of his death. The learned Member has seriously erred in not considering the future prospects which was applicable at 40%. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- invariably Rs.3,200/- is added towards future s and it comes to Rs.11,200/- and the deceased being unmarried at the time of the accident, 50% should have been deducted, the balance would be Rs.5,600/-. Therefore, loss of dependency would be Rs.5,600 X 12X 18=12,09,600/-. Insofar as conventional heads are concerned, the limit should have been Rs.30,000/-, as the deceased was unmarried and dependants are parents and brother. In the circumstances of the case, a fair and just compensation would be Rs.12,39,600/- as against Rs.10,44,000/-,granted by the learned Member. Thus, the claimants are invariably entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,600/-(12,39,600 - 10,44,000).
9. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC with regard to the licence of the rider of the motor cycle is concerned, the rider is dead. There is no credible or corroborative material to the said stand.
10. Not holding an effective driving licence cannot be presumed as an unilateral contention or declaration by the KSRTC.
In the over all circumstances of the case, the learned member was right in allowing the claim petition in part, but seriously erred in under-assessing the compensation. An amount of Rs.12,39,600/- would be a fair and just compensation which includes enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,600/-.
In the circumstances, MFA No.5220/18 filed by the Managing Director, KSRTC, is dismissed and the MFA No.669/2019 filed by the appellants-claimants, is partly allowed and an amount of Rs.12,39,600/- is granted by way of total compensation, which includes enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,600/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
The KSRTC shall pay the difference compensation amount including enhanced compensation with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE psg*