Back
- 1 -
MFA No. 103023 of 2014
C/W. MFA No. 100194 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103023 OF 2014 (MV-D)
C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100194 OF 2015
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103023 OF 2014:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC, NORTH-WEST DIVISION,
GOKUL ROAD, HOSUR,
HUBLI. R/BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER,
NWKRTC, RANEBENNUR DEPOT,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581 115.
NOW BY THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
MFA No. 103023 of 2014
C/W. MFA No. 100194 of 2015
AND:
1.
PRAMEELA W/O MANAPPA @ SATISH KAMMAR,
AGED 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2.
RANJITHA D/O. MANAPPA @ SATISH KAMMAR,
AGED 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3.
TRIVENI D/O. MANAPPA @ SATISH KAMMAR,
AGED 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4.
RAKSHITHA D/O. MANAPPA @ SATISH KAMMAR,
AGED 8 YEARS
(SINCE R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY
MINOR GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO. 1
SMT. PRAMEELA)
ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/O: KADARAMANDALAGI
VILLAGE, TQ: BYADGI,
DIST: HAVERI-581 106.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:03.06.2014, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.103/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & IT
COURT & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BYADGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.12,01,600/- ALONG WITH
THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ITS REALIZATION.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100194 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
1.
PRAMEELA W/O MANAPPA @ SATISH KAMMAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
- 3 -
MFA No. 103023 of 2014
C/W. MFA No. 100194 of 2015
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2.
KUMARI. RANJITHA D/O. MANAPPA @ SATISH KAMMAR,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3.
KUMARI. TRIVENI D/O. MANAPPA @ SATISH KAMMAR,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4.
KUMARI. RAKSHITHA D/O. MANAPPA @ SATISH KAMMAR,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
(SINCE R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY
MINOR GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO. 1
SMT. PRAMEELA)
ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/O: KADARAMANDALAGI
VILLAGE, TQ: BYADGI,
DIST: HAVERI-581 106.
… APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC, NORTH-WEST DIVISION,
GOKUL ROAD, HOSUR,
HUBLI. BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER,
NWKRTC, RANEBENNUR DEPOT,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:03.06.2014, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.103/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND IT
- 4 -
MFA No. 103023 of 2014
C/W. MFA No. 100194 of 2015
COURT & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BYADGI,
PARTLY
ALLOWING
THE
CLAIMS
PETITION
FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
Though these matters are listed for consideration of
Interlocutory Applications, with the consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the matters are taken
up for final disposal.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/s and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/s.
The
KSRTC.,
filed
an
appeal
in
MFA
No.103023/2014 challenging the judgment and award
dated 03.06.2014 passed in MVC No.103/2012 on the file
of Senior Civil Judge & IT Court and AMACT, Byadgi,
(‘Tribunal’
for
short),
questioning
the
quantum
of
compensation as well as the contributory negligence and
the
claimants
have
also
filed
an
appeal
in
MFA
- 5 -
No.100194/2015,
questioning
the
quantum
of
compensation
awarded
by
the
Tribunal
in
MVC
No.103/2012.
The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Tribunal in MVC No.103/2012 is that on
20.07.2011 at about 2:15 hours, the deceased Manappa @
Satish s/o. Nagappa Kammar along with other petitioners
have
boarded
the
KSRTC
Bus
bearing
registration
No.KA.06/F-0636 at Bengaluru to come to Ranebennur
and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the KSRTC., Bus caused the accident by loosing his control
over the vehicle, as a result, the said Manappa @ Satish
s/o. Nagappa Kammar died on account of the accidental
injuries. Hence, they made the claim before the Tribunal.
5.
In support of their claim they have examined
PWs.1 to 4 and also relied upon the documents – Exs.P9 –
Salary Certificate in respect of the salary income of the
- 6 -
deceased and the respondents have not led any evidence
before the Tribunal.
6.
The Tribunal after considering both oral and
documentary
evidence,
awarded
compensation
of
Rs.12,01,600/- in MVC No.103/2012 with 6% interest per
annum from the date of petitions till its realisation.
7.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award,
the KSRTC., filed MFA No.103023/2014 contending that
the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income
of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-, which is on higher side and
though not relied upon Ex.P9, no basis for taking the
income of Rs.7,000/-. The learned counsel also would
submit that instead of taking 25% towards loss of income,
added 30% and the same is erroneous. The learned
counsel also would submit that the inquest witnesses have
categorically made the statement that the deceased was
working as Coolie in terms of Ex.P4 and the wife is not the
dependant and hence, ought to have taken the deduction
- 7 -
1/3rd instead of 1/4th. The learned counsel also would
submit that in terms of Ex.P11, even the deceased has not
paid the installment i.e., a sum of Rs.872/- per month
when he has purchased the gold loan and the same is
evident that he was not having the income of Rs.7,000/-.
Hence, the income taken by the Tribunal is on higher side.
8.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants would submit that PW.4 has been examined
before the Tribunal and he categorically deposed that he
was paying salary of Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal committed
an error in taking the income of Rs.7,000/-. To that effect,
the document - Ex.P9 is also marked as Salary Certificate
and ought to have taken the income of Rs.12,000/- and
hence, committed an error.
9.
The learned counsel also would submit that on
the conventional heads only an amount of Rs.10,000/-
was awarded and no compensation is awarded on the head
of ‘love and affection’ in respect of other claimants. On the
- 8 -
other heads also, not given the just and reasonable
compensation. Hence, it requires an interference of this
Court.
10. The learned Counsel for KSRTC., would submit
that the contributory negligence has not been taken by the
Tribunal and erroneously comes to the conclusion that the
accident is due to the entire negligence on the part of the
driver of the Bus without considering the fact that the
Lorry was parked in the middle of the road without any
signal. Hence, this Court has to take contributory
negligence.
11. Having heard the learned cou
