Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6106

- 1 -

MFA No. 102253 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100047 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102253 OF 2019 (MV-)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ. NO. 100047 OF 2021

MFA NO. 102253 OF 2019

BETWEEN:
1.
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N W K R T C GADAG, DIVISION,
DISTRICT GADAG
REP BY DULY CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M K SOUDAGAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
RAVIKUMAR S/O NINGAPPA HALLADAMANI
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NAREGAL VILLAGE, TAL: RON,
DIST: GADAG-581117
2.
NINGAPPA S/O DIRGAPPA HALLADAMANI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,,
R/O NAREGAL VILLAGE, TAL : RON
DIST: GADAG-581117
3.
BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O MUDAKAPPA MADAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VEERAPUR VILLAGE, RON TALUKA,
DIST: GADAG-581117
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH P.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1& R2
R3 DISPESNED WITH)

- 2 -

MFA No. 102253 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100047 of 2021

MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.172/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITINAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,
RON,
AWARDING
COMPENSATION
OF
Rs.12,09,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

MFA.CROB NO 100047 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1 . RAVIKUMAR S/O NINGAPPA HALLADAMANI
AGE 22 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAREGAL VILLAGE,
TQ . RON,
DIST . GADAG
2 . NINGAPPA S/O DIRGAPPA HALLADAMANI
AGE 55 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAREGAL VILLAGE,
TQ . RON,
DIST . GADAG
... CROSS OBJECTORS

(BY SRI.: MAHANTESH R PATIL, ADV.)

AND
1 . DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N W K R T C GADAG DIVISION,
GADAG, TQ AND DIST. GADAG
- 3 -

MFA No. 102253 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100047 of 2021

2 . BASAVARAJ BASAPPA S/O MUDAKAPPA
MADAR , AGE. 30 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VEERAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. RON,
DIST. GADAG
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R1
R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.102253/2019 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 04.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 172/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RON, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.12,09,000/- WITH INTEREST @8% P.A.
FROM DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL AND CORSS OBJECTION ARE COMING
ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
- 4 -

MFA No. 102253 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100047 of 2021

The court held that the computation of compensation for non-dependent heirs has to be following principles evolved in Manavalagan case, where 25% of the income has to be considered as loss of estate and awarded to non-dependent heirs.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - LOSS OF DEPENDENCY - NEGLIGENCE - ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION - RATE OF INTEREST - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:

A KSRTC bus collided with an auto-rickshaw, resulting in the death of the auto-rickshaw driver. The deceased's brother and father filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging loss of dependency. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,09,000/- with interest at 8% per annum, holding the KSRTC liable to pay the same.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the claimants were not dependents upon the income of the deceased and were not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency. The court also held that the tribunal was justified in fastening entire negligence against the bus driver and that the assessment of compensation and rate of interest awarded by the tribunal was not justified.
Issues: 1. Whether compensation awarded to claimants towards loss of dependency would be sustainable?2. Whether tribunal was justified in fastening entire negligence against bus driver?3. Whether assessment of compensation and rate of interest awarded by Tribunal is justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that even father and siblings would be entitled to claim compensation, but loss of dependency cannot be awarded unless there is some evidence to show that claimants were dependent on income of deceased.2. The court held that the manner of occurrence of accident where bus dashed against auto from behind would sufficiently substantiate finding of Tribunal insofar as negligence.3. The court held that in the absence of material to substantiate the monthly income of the deceased, it has to be assessed notionally and that the claimants would be entitled for compensation towards loss of funeral expenses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and award passed by the tribunal by reducing the compensation to Rs. 4,87,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

Though matters are listed for admission, with

consent of both learned counsel, they are taken up

for final disposal.

Challenging judgment and award dated

04.04.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl.

M.A.C.T. Ron, in MVC No.172/2017, above appeal

and cross objection are filed.

Brief facts as stated are that:

On 29.11.2016 at about 7:00 a.m., when Basavaraj

was driving auto rickshaw bearing registration no.KA-

26/A-1 130 from Purthageri to Gajendragad, near

Kalakaleshwara

circle,

K.S.R.T.C.

bus

bearing

registration no.KA-42/F-1130 driven in a rash and

negligent manner dashed against auto rickshaw. As a

result of accident, Basavaraj sustained grievous injuries

and succumbed to same.

- 5 -

Alleging loss of dependency on account of his

untimely death, his brother and father filed claim petition

against owner of bus and owner of Auto under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act.

Despite service of notice, respondent no.2 –

owner of Auto did not appear. He was placed ex-parte.

Respondent no.1-N.W.K.R.T.C. filed objections denying

negligence on part of driver of bus and alleging entire

negligence against auto driver. Claim petition was also

opposed on quantum.

Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and

recorded evidence wherein claimant no.2 was examined as

PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked and driver of bus was

examined as RW1.

On consideration, tribunal answered issues in

favour

claimants

part

and

awarded

total

compensation of Rs.12,09,000/- with interest at 8% per

annum and held N.W.K.R.T.C. liable to pay same.

- 6 -

Challenging said award, N.W.K.R.T.C. is in

appeal. Sri. M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for appellant

submitted that after investigation police filed charge sheet

against driver of bus for offence under Sections 279 and

304-A of IPC and Section 180 of M.V.Act against

respondent no.2 - owner of auto rickshaw. It was

submitted that Section 180 of M.V. Act is for allowing

driver without licence to drive vehicle, it would imply that

deceased an unlicenced driver was rash and negligent in

causing accident. Hence, tribunal was not justified in

heaping entire liability upon N.W.K.R.T.C.

On quantum, it was submitted that claimants

were father aged 45 years and brother aged 18 years.

Further, in claim petition, occupation of brother and father

was mentioned as agriculture. Therefore, they were not

dependent upon income of deceased and as such, they

were not entitled for compensation. It was further

submitted that award of interest at 8% per annum by

tribunal was also excessive and sought reduction.

- 7 -

10. On other hand, Sri. Mahantesh Patil learned

counsel for claimant-respondent submitted that accident

occurred when bus dashed against auto rickshaw from

behind. Ex.P4-crime detail form, would indicate that

accident occurred at a distance of 10 feet from southern

edge on an East-West road and 14 feet from northern

edge of road. Since auto rickshaw was moving ahead of

bus, regardless of whether driver of auto was possessing

licence, driver of bus who was driving a heavy passenger

vehicle was required to maintain adequate care and failure

to stop his vehicle to avoid collision would indicate that he

was rash and negligent. Therefore, finding of Tribunal

would be justifiable.

11. Insofar as quantum of compensation, it was

submitted that claimant had also filed cross objection for

enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that

accident occurred during year 2016 and though deceased

was earning more than Rs.15,000/- p.m., tribunal has

- 8 -

considered his monthly income at Rs.7,000/-. Therefore,

compensation requires to be enhanced.

12. Even addition of 50% towards future prospects

when deceased self employed was unjustified and sought

for enhancement. It was further submitted that award of

compensation under conventional head also requires

enhancement.

13. From

above

submissions,

occurrence

accident involving goods auto rickshaw and K.S.R.T.C. bus

leading to death of auto driver Basavara

Click Here to Read the rest of this document