The Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. vs Indra N. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal is by the Corporation, being aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and award dated 20.06.2014 passed in MVC No. 775/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal'' for short).

The Tribunal by its common judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization on account of the death of the deceased one B.T. Yogesha in the road traffic accident.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and for not fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the Corporation has presented this appeal seeking appropriate relief.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The Respondent No. 1 is the wife, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minor children and Respondent No. 4 is the mother of the deceased. They have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 29,60,000/- with 18% interest from the date of petition till realization on account of death of the deceased Yogesha B.T. in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.05.2013 at about 6.30 a.m. contending that the deceased was the rider of Hero Honda splendor motorcycle bearing No. KA-04-EK-5097 and was proceeding along with pillion riders towards Nagamangala near Hombalekoppalu gate. At that time, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-06-F-539 drove it in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, rider Yogesha B.T. and Chandra S/o. Raju sustained fatal injuries. But, unfortunately deceased Yogesha B.T. died on the spot."

It is the case of the claimants that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years, hale and healthy, working as attender at Compassion unlimited plus Action Animal Clinic, Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. He was the only bread earner in the family. Due to his untimely death, the wife has lost her life partner, children have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance in life and the mother is deprived of seeing the future of her bright son. Taking all these facts and circumstances, the claimants have filed claim petition against the appellant contending that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus by its driver, the accident has occurred and the claimants have lost the bread earner in the family. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the same by awarding Rs. 17,40,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization.

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Corporation has presented this appeal seeking appropriate relief.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation contended that the Tribunal has erred in not fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the same is contrary to the evidence available on record. Just filing a charge sheet is not a conclusive proof for fastening the entire liability on the driver of the bus. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award cannot be sustained and liable to be modified fixing the reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the motor cycle also.

Further, he submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. To substantiate the same, he pointed out and submitted that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,500/- per month which is on the higher side, 50% of the income was taken as future prospects following the Judgment in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , which cannot be made applicable. Further, he placed reliance on the decision reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , and submitted that, while calculating the income of the deceased, future prospects at 30% is to be added to the income and after deducting income tax and professional tax, by applying the appropriate multiplier considering the age of the deceased, reasonable compensation be awarded. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award cannot be sustained and is liable to be modified.

After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the occurrence of accident resulting in the death of the deceased is not in dispute. Further it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 28 years and working as Attender at Compassion Unlimited Plus Action Animal Clinic, Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month as per the Salary Certificate of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased on the basis of daily wages at Rs. 225/- per day. In addition to that, he was earning more salary by doing over time work. If his income is calculated by taking daily wages of Rs. 225/-, it comes to Rs. 6,750/- per month. By adding Rs. 250/- towards over time work, his income could be taken at Rs. 7,000/- per month. By adding another 50% of his income at Rs. 3,500/-, totally his income was taken at Rs. 10,500/- per month.

Further, the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the appropriate multiplier considering the age of the deceased and awarding just and reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency. Hence it does not call for interference.

In fact, the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of estate and no compensation is awarded under the head ''Loss of love and affection'' and the interest awarded at 6% per annum is also on the lower side. The accident is of the year 2013. Therefore at least 9% interest ought to have been awarded by Tribunal. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ''Loss of dependency'' and ''Conventional Heads'' is just and reasonable. It does not call for interference.

However, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been rightly awarded under the head ''Loss of Consortium'', Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards ''Funeral expenses'' and a sum of Rs. 8,500/- is awarded towards ''Loss of estate''.

Regarding not fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider of motor cycle, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.

The Tribunal after critical examination of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record, has recorded a specific finding of fact in Paras 11, 12 and 13 of the Judgment and answered Issue No. 1 in Affirmative. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is after due evaluation of oral and documentary evidence which is well founded and well reasoned. It is not in dispute that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the bus, which is a conclusive proof. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, the Tribunal is justified in fixing the entire negligence on the part of the driver of Bus. Hence, it does not call for interference.

Taking all these facts referred above, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.

The amount in deposit by the Corporation shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.

In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, the relief sought in IA No. 2/2014 does not survive for consideration and I.A. No. 2/2014 is disposed of as having become infructuous.