Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21691
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
D. K. SINGH, VENKATESH NAIK T, JJ
RAJAMMA W/O. LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP MYSURU-570 015 – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.421 OF 2021 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA
For the Respondents: SMT. NIRMALA
Compensation for loss of dependency must reflect actual and potential earnings of the deceased, including future prospects and conventional heads.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Compensation for death in motor accident - Total compensation modified from Rs.7,54,000/- to Rs.12,66,852/- with interest at 6% p.a. - The Tribunal erred in assessing notional income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m., not considering future prospects, and conventional heads - Re-assessment of notional income to Rs.9,500/- p.m. indicated by Higher Authorities. (Paras 8 to 12)
(B) Claim for enhancement of compensation - Just compensation must be reflective of loss and sustenance capabilities of the deceased, supporting evidence is necessary, and assessment must entertain future earnings. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellants filed a claim petition following the accidental death of Channegowda caused by a KSRTC bus, alleging negligent driving by the bus driver and seeking just compensation for loss sustained. (Paragraphs 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
Tribunal's award insufficient as it did not account adequately for actual earnings and future prospects of the deceased; consequently, compensation was significantly enhanced. (Paragraphs 12)
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? (Paragraph 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld previous rulings that necessitate fair consideration for future prospects and appropriate deductions for personal expenses, highlighting the need for just compensation. (Paragraphs 10, 11)
Result: Appeal allowed-in-part; compensation modified to Rs.12,66,852/- with enhancements ordered. (Paragraph 13)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and claimants' assertions regarding death. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments from the claimants and responses from the respondent. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. determination of compensation validity and assessment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's reasoning about compensation and statutory requirements. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final decision on compensation enhancement and directives. (Para 12 , 13) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Corporation.
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 25.07.2019 passed in MVC No.557/2016 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, (for short, 'Tribunal') whereby, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,54,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal are as under:-
On 02.02.2016 at about 7.30 a.m., near Vaddarapalya bridge, on Mysuru-Manandavadi main road, when Channegowda (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was proceeding on left side of the road by riding his TVS Moped, bearing registration No.KA-01 EP-4073 towards Kannenahalli, H.D. Kote Taluk, at the same time, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09 F 5157 drove the same in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed to the TVS Moped of Channegowda from backside, thus caused the accident and the said bus dragged the moped to some distance alongwith the rider. Due to the said impact, Channegowda succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Hence, the claimants had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation. The deceased was aged 50 years and was involved in coconut business and was also running provision stores in Hommarahalli village, thereby earning a profit of Rs.1,000 to Rs,2000/- per day and maintaining the family.
4. The Tribunal by considering the evidence on record as per Exs-P1 to P9, Exs-R1 to R3 and oral evidence of PWs-1, 2 and RW.1 allowed the claim petition in-part and awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,54,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this appeal.
5. Smt. Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants strenuously contended that the Tribunal has granted meager compensation under all heads. The Tribunal has not granted fair and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. Though the claimants are entitled for future prospectus, however the Tribunal has not granted the same. Further, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. Infact, the deceased was involved in a coconut business and also running a provision store and earning Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per day, but these aspects are not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel Smt. Nirmala for respondent/Corporation supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including original records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal:-
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
8. In the instant case, the Insurance company has not disputed the accident, cause of death of the deceased and liability to pa
