Channagiri and Others vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.

Rathnakala, J.—1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.3.2015 passed in M.V.C. No. 54/2013 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, whereby their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the death of their sibling/deceased Muthuraj is dismissed.

Briefly stated, the deceased Muthuraj, who was aged 25 years, was a vegetable vendor. He was proceeding on a motor cycle driven by one Vijay Kumar on 21.9.2012; at about 5.00 p.m., near Kysapura gate to Ramanagara, the offending vehicle/KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-41/F-036 came with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Consequently, the deceased/pillion rider fell down, suffered fatal injuries and breathed his last at the spot itself.

The appellants being married/unmarried brothers and sisters of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs as compensation under various heads.

The Tribunal after holding enquiry, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the claimants are not entitled for compensation.

Sri. K.P. Bhuvan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and was earning handsome income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Among eight siblings, two of them are unmarried sisters and one is a physically disabled brother. They were completely depending on the earnings of the deceased. On the untimely death of the deceased, they are exposed to untold hardship and misery. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (Civil Appeal No. 3860/2013 [arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24825/2010]), they being the Class-II legal heirs, are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

As against this, Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/K.S.R.T.C. submits that, all the claimants being majors, they are neither dependants on his income nor the Class-I legal heirs of the deceased. Rightly the Tribunal has rejected their claim petition and the order is well-reasoned in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in -

"(1) Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (, 2009 ACJ 1298), wherein it was held that mother only is the dependent;

(2) Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (, LAWS (SC)-2012-4-53), wherein it was held that the married sister is not a dependant and

(3) Jayakodi v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (LAWS(SC)-2008-1-117, which held that, father, sisters and brothers are neither the dependants nor legal representatives of the deceased."

In the light of above rival submissions, following points arise for consideration:

"(1) Whether claimants/brothers and sisters of victim of road traffic accident can maintain claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

(2) If in the affirmative, what is the quantum of compensation they are entitled to?"

The law on the point is squarely covered by the reported judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in , ILR 2002 KAR 887 in the matter of Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. v. Venkataramappa K.S. and Others, wherein it was held that the brothers and sisters of the deceased can maintain the claim petition even though they are not dependants on the income of the deceased. That prompts us to directly move on to the next point i.e., the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. The deceased at the relevant point of time was aged 25 years; he being a vegetable vendor, having regard to the date of the accident, we assume that he was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. Admittedly he was a bachelor and there is no documentary proof to infer that the claimants were residing with him under the same roof. In that view of the matter we hold that though they are not entitled for loss of future dependency, being the Class-II heirs, as per Section 8(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they are entitled for loss of estate arising on the death of the deceased. Assuming that out of earning of Rs. 7,000/-, he would have saved Rs. 1,000/- per month as if he was alive, loss of estate has to be capitalized by his annual income with a suitable multiplier appropriate to his age. For the age group of 21-25, ''18'' is the multiplier, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), that works out to Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rs. 1,000/- x 12 x 18). Towards loss of love and affection, they are entitled for Rs. 50,000/-. Towards funeral expenses, another Rs. 25,000/- would suffice for the ends of justice being met. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,91,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till recovery.

It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that, claimant Nos. 3 and 8 are not married and the 7th claimant though married is residing in the parental home itself. PW-1/first claimant claims to have conducted the funeral ceremony and last rituals of the deceased. Having regard to the above said facts, which are extracted during cross-examination, the compensation amount has to be apportioned.

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and awards dated 10.3.2015 passed in M.V.C. No. 54/2013 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, is hereby set aside.

The appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,91,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till recovery.

The respondent/K.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and award.

On such deposit being made by the respondent/Corporation, the appellant Nos. 3 and 8 are entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest, out of which Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest each shall be invested in their names in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled/Grameena Bank for a period of five years renewable for another five years, with liberty to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically and Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest each shall be equally disbursed to them.

Further, appellant No. 1 is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest, which shall be released in his favour.

Remaining sum of Rs. 41,000/- with proportionate interest shall be disbursed among the remaining appellants, equally.

Office to draw award, accordingly.