Managing Director, KSRTC, Bangalore vs Siddappa and Others

S. Sujatha, J. - The Corporation as well as the claimants are before this Court, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bijapur in MVC No. 1169/2002.

Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation Sri Subhash Mallapur, assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal a contends that the Tribunal has apportioned) the liability on the Corporation at 25% to satisfy the award, there being on basic for the said apportionment. It is contended that the road traffic accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle, the charge-sheet is also filed by the Police Authorities against the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal without any basis fastened the liability to the extent of 25% on the appellant-Corporation.

The claimants are also before this Court in appeal challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is contended that the driver of the bus without giving any signal abruptly slowed down the bus, which made the rider of the motorcycle to collide with the bus, as a result of which, the pillion rider fell down; the rear wheel of the bus passed on him and he died on the spot. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the entire liability on the appellant-Corporation. Contrary to the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has determined the composite negligence of two offending vehicles involved in the accident. The composite negligence at 75% on the rider of the motorcycle is based only on the evidence of P.W. 2 which is not worthy of acceptance. The learned counsel for the claimants further challenging the quantum of compensation awarded would contend that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 taking into consideration the age of the younger parent of the deceased whereas, the multiplier ought to have taken at 17 in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Munnalal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and another ((2015) 6 SCC 347).

Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

Regarding the composite negligence of the driver of the two vehicles, the Tribunal has extensively considered the evidence of PW. 2 and RW. 2 coupled with the Police records. After appreciating the evidence available on record and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Company Limited ((2009) TAC 13 (SC) has fixed the ability on the appellant-Corporation to the extent of 25% which cannot be found fault with.

However, regarding the quantum of compensation awarded, the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased to apply the multiplier, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Munnalals case (AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 1130) (supra). In view of the dictum pronounced by the Apex Court in Munnalal''s case (supra), applying he multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,06,000/-. In the result, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs. 3,36,000/-.

The compensation of Rs. 84,000/- being the 25% of the total compensation, shall be paid by the appellant-Corporation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. In all other aspects, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed as indicated above.