Managing Director, KSRTC Central Offices, Bangalore vs Rathnama

Ram Mohan Reddy, J. - Since common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeals are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this judgment.

MFA 7150/2015 is filed by the claimant in MVC 5655/2013 aggrieved by the quantum of compensation by judgment and award dated 2nd June, 2015 of the XXI ACMM and XXIII ASCJ, Bengaluru (for short ''MACT''), while MFA 6279/2015 is filed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short ''KSRTC'') calling in question the very same judgment and award insofar as it relates to finding attributing actionable negligence to the driver of the offending bus and quantum of compensation.

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, perused the pleadings, examined the judgment and award impugned and evidence both oral and documentary, following two questions arise for decision making.

(i) "Whether in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, MACT was justified in attributing actionable negligence to the driver of the bus belonging to KSRTC?

(ii) Whether in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record the MACT was justified in awarding Rs. 11,65,040/- with interest at 8% per annum as compensation due to the of death of Puttaraju alias Putta, aged 24 years as on date of accident?"

The answer to the first question need not detain the Court for long. Ex.P.2, spot sketch discloses the place of impact on the road between Bengaluru and Doddaballapur is on the wrong side of the bus driven from Doddaballapur to Bengaluru, in other words, on the correct side of the motor cycle proceeding from Bengaluru to Doddaballapur. The MACT, in the circumstances, was fully justified in recording the said finding on issue No. 1 attributing actionable negligence on the driver of the offending bus. First question is answered in the affirmative.

The MACT reckoned Rs. 8,000/- as income of the deceased, a bachelor, deducted 50% towards personal expenses to arrive at Rs. 4,000/- as monthly loss of dependency and Rs. 48,000/- per annum, to which was applied multiplier 14 as applicable to age 45 of younger of the parents i.e. mother, to award Rs. 6,72,000/- towards loss of dependency, to which was added Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The MACT considered future prospects and awarded 50% of Rs. 4,000/- as monthly loss of future prospects and to the annual loss applied multiplier 14 to arrive at Rs. 3,36,000/- towards loss of future prospects and to which was added Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation of dead body. The MACT awarded Rs. 47,040/- towards loss to estate reckoning 7% of loss of dependency i.e., Rs. 4000 x 12 x 14 x 7%.

There is force in the submission of learned counsel for claimant that MACT was not justified in applying multiplier 14 as applicable to age 45 of the mother being the younger of the parents, since Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 347 ; (2015 AAC 1834) held that the multiplier applicable is as applicable to the age of the deceased. Reckoning Rs. 8,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, deducting 50% towards his personal expenses and applying multiplier 18 as applicable to age 24 of the deceased, appellant is entitled to Rs. 8,64,000/- as against Rs. 6,72,000/- awarded by the MACT hence entitled to the balance of Rs. 1,92,000/-.

There is force in the submission of Sri F. S. Dabali, learned counsel, that in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that deceased was earning regular income from a stable employment having future prospects, MACT was not justified in awarding Rs. 3,36,000/- towards loss of future prospects. It is no doubt true that it is only in exceptional cases where existence of future prospects is established since deceased has a regular income in a stable job, is entitled to future loss of prospects and not otherwise. In the instant case, appellant having failed to place relevant material before Court to established such loss of future prospects, award of Rs. 3,36,000/- is unjust, calling for interference.

MACT fell in error in awarding Rs. 47,040/- towards loss to estate by reckoning 7% loss of dependency and applying multiplier 14. Loss to estate is a head of damage falling under pecuniary damages which is a conventional sum and cannot be based on percentage of loss of dependency. MACT having no understanding of law on pecuniary damages committed a grave error. It is no doubt true that the deceased was aged 24 and left behind his parents out of whom his father is no more, having died during the pendency of the claim petition hence Rs. 40,000/-towards loss to estate is just.

In the result, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation.

Loss of dependency Rs. 8,64,000/-

Loss of love and affection Rs. 75,000/-

Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-

Transport of dead body Rs. 10,000/-

Loss to estate Rs. 40,000/-

Total Rs. 10,14,000/-

Sri F. S. Dabali, learned counsel is correct in his submission that there is no justification to award interest at 8% per annum, without assigning reasons and is contrary'' to the decision of the Division Bench in Smt. P. Ramadevi v. Sri C. B. Saikrishna, AIR 1994 Kar 8 whence it is held that compensation paid is for pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss and the interest awarded is for delayed payment of such compensation while compensation, is an amount paid in advance for loss of life or loss of dependency or loss of earnings, not being a debt, qualifies for interest at 6% per annum.

Learned counsel points to the decision of another co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. Geetha, AIR 1989 Kar 104, whence it was held thus :

"13. xxx Generally speaking a composite rate of 6% should be considered satisfactory without any specific itemization because the component of compensation in the ''interest pool'' is comparatively smaller and the sizable component is the amount awarded for the loss of future dependency. We, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal have an undoubted discretion to award higher rates of interest, if in their opinion, the circumstances of the particular case justify such higher-rates."

The MACT was not justified in awarding 8% interest and in the circumstances, rate of interest is 6% per annum.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. Judgment and award impugned is modified entitling the claimant/appellant to Rs. 10,14,000/- as against Rs. 11,65,040/-and interest at 6% per annum and in all other respects remains unaltered. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the MACT, forthwith.

I.A. 1/2015 in MFA 6279/2015 is rejected as unnecessary.