THE MANAGING DIRECTOR v. PRAJWAL A

PRAJWAL A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SMT N K VINITHA @ VINUTHA W/O LTE B P MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS KUM NAYANA D/O LATE B P MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT SMT N K VINITHA @ VINUTHA SRI PARMESHWARAPPA S/O LATE MAHEDAVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS DAKASHINAMMA @ DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT INDRANAGAR POST OFFICE ROAD, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DIST 562 123 PERMANENT ADDRESS NO.78 BYALADALU, KADUR CHIKMAGALURU 577 175 …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39682 MFA No. 1521 of 2017 (BY SRI.KALYAN R. ADV. FOR R3 & R4; R2 MINOR REP. BY R3 & R4 SINCE R1 DECEASED; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.07.2024 R2 TO R4 ARE LRS. OF DECEASED R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4672/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 18,03,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA ORAL JUDGMENT In this appeal, the Managing Director of the B.M.T.C. is challenging the quantum of compensation and also rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, on 30.03.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., the husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner No.2 and son of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 by name B.P.Mallikarjuna, the deceased, while walking by the side of the road near PS Junction on - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39682 MFA No. 1521 of 2017 NH-4 service road, Peenya 1st stage, Bengaluru, BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57/F-347 dashed against him, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries, he was treated at Sapthagiri Hospital, Bangalore, but he succumbed to death. The petitioners as dependants approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.30 lakhs. Claim was opposed by the BMTC. After taking the evidence and hearing both parties, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition assessing the compensation of Rs.18,03,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. Pleading that the Tribunal has taken excess income, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are not the dependants, the rate of interest is on the higher side and seeking reduction of compensation, the BMTC is before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the BMTC and Sri.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39682 MFA No. 1521 of 2017

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the BMTC that after filing of the appeal, petitioner No.1, who is the wife of deceased, is reported to be dead. The only dependant is petitioner No.2, the daughter. It is brought out in the evidence, parents are not depending on the income of the deceased. 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. In the year 2016, notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- per month whereas the Tribunal has taken at Rs.10,000/-. The deceased was aged 42 years and compensation has to be calculated accordingly.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 has contended that the petitioner No.2 is minor daughter, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents. As legal representatives, they are the dependants entitled to claim compensation. At the time of filing of the claim petition, petitioner No.3 was aged 70 years, petitioner No.4 was aged 65 years and now they have become super senior citizens. Hence, - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39682 MFA No. 1521 of 2017 they have to be treated as dependants and compensation has to be awarded to them. The deceased was working as Clerk in Mandipet. He was the only bread earner of the family. The Tribunal has rightly taken the income at Rs.10,000/- and assessed the compensation and it is not a case for reduction of compensation including rate of interest.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of both sides and also perused the materials on record.

8. Accident is not in dispute. Petitioners are the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased on the date of accident. Petitioners though claiming that the deceased was working as Clerk in Mandipet, there is no proof of income. In the year 2016, a person with no proof of income will earn not less than Rs.9,500/- and accordingly notional income has to be taken. For the age of 42, the applicable multiplier is 14. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39682 MFA No. 1521 of 2017

9. Adverting to the argument of the learned counsel for the BMTC that the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 cannot be treated as dependants of the deceased is not persuasive, being super senior citizens, they have to depend on their son. Hence, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses and for the age of 42, future prospects has to be considered at 25%.

10. On the above parameters, loss of dependency will be : Rs.9,500/- + Rs.2,375/- (25%) = Rs.11,875/- - Rs.3,958/- (1/3rd) = Rs.7,917/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.13,30,056/-. Towards loss of love and affection to the minor daughter, parental consortium Rs.44,000/- each; Rs.16,500/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses has to be considered. Then the compensation under conventional heads comes to Rs.1,65,000/-. Total compensation comes to Rs.14,95,056/- as against Rs.18,03,000/- assessed by the Tribunal, thereby reduction of Rs.3,07,944/-. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39682 MFA No. 1521 of 2017

11. As regarding rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest. Perusal of impugned judgment goes to show, Tribunal did not point out any special reason in awarding such rate of interest. In the year 2016, no Banks will offer interest @ 9%. However, the Tribunal can award higher rate of interest with proper and cogent reasons. In the absence of any special reason, the Division Bench of this court in Ms.Joyeeta Bose and Ors. -vs- Venkateshan.V. and Ors. in M.F.A.No.5896/2018 c/w M.F.A.Nos.4444/2018 and 4659/2018 (MV) DD

24.08.2020 with reference to Section 149(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 253 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code, at Para 52 has laid down principles regarding award of interest, it reads thus: "52. Thus, under Section 34 of CPC being squarely applicable to the interest awarded by the tribunal and Section 34 empowering the tribunal to award pendente lite interest and discretion being vested with the Court/Tribunal - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39682 MFA No. 1521 of 2017 to award interest from the date of suit or petition is to the maximum extent of 6% p.a. or in other words, not exceeding 6% p.a., the contention raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the Insurance Company deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it is accepted. . . . . . . . . . . ." In view of the above, interest at the rate of 9% per annum is not justified and it shall be 6% per annum.

12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following: ORDER i) Appeal is partly allowed; ii) Impugned judgment and award modified; iii) Petitioners entitled compensation of Rs.14,95,056/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization; iv) The BMTC is directed to deposit the said compensation with interest supra within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment; - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39682 MFA No. 1521 of 2017 v) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. SD/- (T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE KNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5