IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.1769/2010(MV) BETWEEN:
VANI T.C W/O LATE K V NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O KURUDUGARANAHALLI VILLAGE KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. ..APPELLANT (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE.
..RESPONDENT (BY SRI F S DABALI, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.06.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.839/2007 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.) AND MACT, MAHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND APPORTIONMENT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 24.06.2009 passed in MVC No.839/2007 by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Dn) & MACT, Madhugiri. The appellant herein seeks enhancement of compensation granted because of road traffic accident in which she lost her husband.
2. Basically it appears claim petition was not preferred by all the dependants with unity. Claimant- appellant had preferred claim petition in MVC No.839/2007 separately and parents had preferred claim petition in MVC No.483/2007.
3. That on 26.01.2007 the victim K.V Nataraju was traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA- 32-F-899 from Tumkur to Sindhanur and on 27.01.2007 at about 2.30 a.m. when the bus was proceeding near Hottajjannakapile due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus accident occurred and the victim K.V.Nataraju sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them at the spot. Claim petition was preferred. However, it is stated that the present appellant was arrayed as second respondent in the connected MVC No.483/2007 preferred by the petitioners being the parents of deceased K.V.Nataraju. The accident was not disputed nor the death.
4. Petitioner in support of her claim examined herself as PW-2, Veeranagappa as PW-1 and Ranganath as PW-3 and got marked exhibits P-1 to P-
9. After service of notice respondent-KSRTC appeared through its counsel and resisted the petition by filing written statement. Learned Member after considering the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,64,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. as under:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Loss of Dependency Rs.12,24,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 15,000/-
Love and affection Rs. 5,000/- Towards Transportation Rs. 5,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.12,64,000/-
5. Compensation towards `loss of dependency’ and other permissible heads, due to death of K.V.Nataraju the present appellant in the capacity of wife and her parents in law in the capacity of father and mother of the deceased K.V.Nataraju were entitled for compensation of Rs.12,64,000/- in the ratio of 50:25:25, wherein `loss of dependency’ was considered at Rs.12,24,000/- by taking notional income at Rs.9,000/- and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and the equation adopted is as under:
Rs.6,000x12x17 = Rs.12,24,000/-
6. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Spoorthy Hegde, would submit that appellant had claimed Rs.20,00,000/- before the Tribunal. Further he would submit the compensation granted is neither reasonable nor just. Further there was no reply for not impleading the parents of the deceased.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that compensation already granted is just and fair and there is no need for enhancement.
8. It is necessary to clarify that KSRTC had preferred appeals and it was submitted by both the learned counsel that those appeals came to be dismissed. Thus, material facts available are:
(1) K.V.Nataraj died in road accident on 27.01.2007.
(2) The present appellant is the claimant- petitioner in MVC No.839/2007 before the Tribunal at the same time Sri Veeranagappa and Smt.Puttamma, parents of deceased K.V.Nataraju preferred MVC No.483/2007.
9. In this appeal wife-T.C.Vani seeks enhancement of compensation. Her contention is that she had claimed Rs.20,00,000/- balance ought to have been considered in her favour. Another improper aspect followed by the appellant is that she does not implead her parents-in-law as respondents. However, learned counsel for appellant Sri Spoorthy Hegde would submit they are respondents 2 and 3, regard being had to the fact that in the cause title and context it is loud and clear that there is only one respondent- KSRTC.
10. Further the compensation is not awarded solely on heirship basis. Dependency is of paramount importance. It is to be noticed that a legal heir is a legal heir and it does not get entitled or disentitled to claim compensation exclusively on the basis of legal heirship without dependence. The entitlement when the compensation is awarded is invariably among the dependants of the victim at the time of his death due to injuries in a road traffic accident.
11. K.V.Nataraju was aged 34 years as per post mortem report, applicable multiplier is`16’ but the tribunal erred in adopting multiplier `17’. The error in adopting the multiplier at `17’ needs to be rectified and same is done under this appeal. It is considered at ‘16’. Monthly income is taken at Rs.9,000/-, 1/3rd is deducted towards personal and living expenses. Balance is Rs.6,000/- and that is taken as reckoning factor. Here I find the Tribunal has definitely erred in not adding future prospects in which event the `loss of dependency’ would be as under:
Rs.9,000+40%-Rs.3,600=Rs.12,600-1/3-4200= 8,400x12x16= Rs.16,12,800/-
Conventional heads =Rs. 70,000/-
Rs.16,82,800/-
12. So compensation should have been Rs.16,82,800/- and another aspect is compensation that was granted by learned Member is
13. Appeal is not preferred by any of the claimants in MVC No.483/2007 seeking enhancement but obligation of the Tribunal or court as the case may be invariably mandates for determining `Just compensation’ despite the fact that they might have preferred the appeal or not, the assessment is by court not by litigants. Non preferring of appeal is no matter. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a social legislation courts have to excel in demonstrating the nature of legislation at each and every relevant occasion. Thus, the total amount of compensation ought to have been sanctioned is at Rs.16,82,800/-.
14. The appellant definitely for wrong reasons has not impleaded the parents of deceased as respondents. Invariably the dependents as found by the Tribunal and confirmed by this court in MVC Nos.483/2007 and 839/2007 by common disposal are the present appellant and parents of the deceased. Thus, the conduct of the appellant cannot be stamped to be correct by this court and invariably the compensation whether confirmed compensation or enhanced compensation should be apportioned among all the claimants no matter if the parents have not preferred the appeal but when once their legitimate right focus on entitlement of compensation their non participation in the proceedings is not fatal for their right to compensation as it is said to be Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium `where there is a right, there is a remedy’. In the circumstances I find, out of the enhanced compensation appellant is entitled for 50% and the balance amount has to be apportioned between the parents in the ratio of 25:25. In this connection in view of the fact that as parents have not preferred appeal invariably not represented by a counsel in this court the contents of the order to be notified by Taluka Legal Services Authority at Madhugiri whose duty shall be liaison for securing petitioners in MVC No.483/2007 and make them know that they are entitled for the enhanced compensation in the ratio of 25:25 and it reaches them in accordance with law in the mode and equation determined by trial court.
15. Court particularly on functioning as Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act, bear duty of properly scrutinizing and identifying the right of a victim and claimants under social legislation whether they are represented by learned counsel or otherwise.
For the foregoing reasons, I find the appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Hence, the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part and compensation amount of Rs.12,64,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation is enhanced to Rs.16,82,800/-. The enhancement is Rs.4,18,800/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Out of which the appellant herein is entitled for 50% and claimants in MVC No.483/2007 are entitled for enhanced compensation in the ratio of 25:25. To that extent the Judgment and award dated 24.06.2009 passed in MVC No.839/2007 by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, MACT, Madhugiri, is modified. Appellant is not entitled for interest for the delay period.
Respondent-KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Office is directed to communicate the Tribunal regarding the scope and application of this order for implementation.
Dispatch the amount in deposit, if any to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN