IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3149 of 2013(MV) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.
NO.12, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD REGIONAL OFFICE DHARMAPURI-636 705 TAMILNADU STATE ...APPELLANT (BY SRI H.K SATEESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.PURANDARA AND SRI BOPANNA.B, BDPS ASSOCIATES) AND:
1. SRI B M KRISHNACHETTY S/O MANIKKACHETTI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O KRISHNACHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI B.K. PRABHAKAR S/O KRISHNACHETTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT C/O HEMAVATHI BOMMANAHALLI, ROOPENA AGRAHARA N.G.R. LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 085 ... RESPONDENTS (R2- SERVED & UNREPRESENTED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10/08/2017 R2 IS LR’S OF DECEASED R1 & R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1841/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,44,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company/Respondent against the judgment and award dated 02.06.2012 passed by the M.A.C.T. – (SCCH-13), Bengaluru City in M.V.C.No.1841 of 2011.
2. The parties are referred to by their ranks as they were referred before the Court below.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
On 29.01.2011 at about 10.20 p.m., when the deceased was crossing NH-7, Hosur-Krishnagiri Road, near Ashok Leyland Plant – II, at that time, the driver of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Reg.No.TN-29-N-2022 had come at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased due to which he had sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Hosur Government Hospital and thereafter, to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru, but inspite of best treatment given, he had succumbed to the fatal injuries on 30.01.2011. The post-mortem was conducted in the said hospital. The body was handed over to the petitioners for performing last rites. The petitioners who are the parents and brother of the deceased had spent substantial amount for transportation of dead body and funeral. At the time of accident, deceased was working as tailor and was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. and was contributing said amount towards maintenance of the family. The jurisdictional police have registered a case against the driver of the TNSTC bus and after investigating the matter filed charge-sheet against him. The respondent is the owner of the said vehicle and hence, liable to pay the compensation. The petitioners being the parents of the deceased and brother of the deceased filed a petition before the M.A.C.T. under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs on account of untimely death of the deceased.
4. The petition was resisted by the Insurance Company, denying the age and income of the deceased. The manner of accident, negligence, etc., are also denied. The income of the deceased claim to be at Rs.48,000/- per annum. Therefore, the petition under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act is not maintainable. The Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try the petition since the accident has occurred in Tamilnadu.
5. Based on the above said facts and pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the following issues:
i) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of deceased B.K.Chandrashekhar?
ii) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in road traffic accident on 29.01.2011 at about 10.20 p.m. involving TNSTC bus bearing No.TN 29 N 2022?
iii) Whether respondent proves that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased?
iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent?
v) What order or award?
6. After holding trial, the petition came to be allowed awarding compensation of Rs.3,44,500/- to the petitioners. The main contention in the appeal is only on two counts. Firstly, that the M.A.C.T. has no territorial jurisdiction to try the petition filed under Section 163 of the M.V. Act since the income of the deceased was Rs.48,000/- per annum, therefore, the petition under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act could not have been maintained.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1 though served has not appeared and addressed any arguments and therefore, taken as heard.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following point arise for consideration in this appeal:
Whether the Appellant/Insurance Company can avoid its liability to satisfy the award on the ground that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction and on the ground that the income of the decease exceeds Rs.40,000/- fixed in the Second Schedule of 163(A) of M.V. Act?
9. At the very outset, I find that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned are liable to be dismissed in limine. Except one sentence contending that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction, no specific denial is there except the address furnished by the appellant in the cause-title. Moreover, this is a petition under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act, which reads as under:
“163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be”.
On perusal of the above said Act, having regard to the non-obstante clause used in Section 163(A) of the Act. I find that the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. If the petition were one under Section 166(A) of the Act, there would have been some merit in the arguments of the appellant’s counsel. As regard the income limit of Rs.40,000/- as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, I find that the said arguments is also not tenable in law because there is no prohibition under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act, that the income of the deceased should be only Rs.40,000/- and persons having more income are not entitled to file the petition under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act. It is also important to note that the maximum notional income that is presumed is said to be Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has considered the said fact and has limited the income of the deceased to Rs.40,000/- p.a. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses and by applying multiplier of ‘17’, the loss of dependency has been assessed. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal.
10. The two points alleged by the appellant are not available for consideration so far as the liability to satisfy the award is concerned also there no dispute is raised. Accordingly, points for determination is answered in the negative. Hence, for all the above said reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly it is dismissed.
No costs.
The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Registry is directed to send back the lower court records.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2 of 2013 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE DH