The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. vs Smt Shakila Banu Mi and Others

Dr. K. Bhakathavatsala, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.11.2005 made in MVC No. 240/2004 on the file of Ad-Hoc District Judge and Motor Accident. Claims Tribunal, at Virajpet.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligence by its driver without considering the contributory negligence by the deceased. He also submits that though the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- per month, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income at Rs. 8,000/- and awarded compensation in all amounting to Rs. 7,91,000/-. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgement and award may be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants 1 to 5 submit that there is no good ground to entertain the appeal. There is no merit in the appeal.

We have perused the LCR.

5, The claimants are wife, son and three daughter, They filed a claim petition u/s 156 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 30 Lakhs towards death of husband/father Sri. Mohammed Haneef who died in the motor accident that occurred on 10.11.2003. The claim petition was filed against the KSRTC bus driver and KSRTC. It is pleaded that when the deceased was riding moped from Kattemalavadi of Hunsur and that when he was near the property of one Jayaram, KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA-09-F-2373 came from behind and dashed against the moped, as a result of which rider of the moped fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died. The police registered a case and also led a chargesheet against the driver of the KSRTC bus. It is pleaded that the deceased was doing business and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and meeting educational expenses of the children. It is stated that the claimant No. 2 son had just completed his M.B.A. and is unemployed Claimant No. 3 was studying in her final B.D.S, and Claimant No. 4 was studying in final year B.Sc., at Field Marshal Kariappa College, Mangalore.

Inspite service of notice on the driver of the KSRTC bus, he remained ex parte. Respondent No 2 KSRTC filed its objections denying the averments of the claim petition, KSRTC has taken a contention that the deceased went and dashed against the cyclist and fell down on the road and when the bus came, the passengers travelling in the bus requested the driver of the bus to shift the injured person to the hospital and thus the bus was not involved in the accident. In support of the case of the claimants, Claimant No. 1 son of the deceased got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs P1 to P17. No rebuttal evidence was adduced. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 on the point of negligence or on the point of income and the additional expenses of the claimants. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in answering Issue No. 1 on the point of negligence in the ''Affirmative'' in favour of the claimants. In so far quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has applied ''12'' multiplier at the deceased was aged 50 years. No record was produced to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Keeping in view the educational expenses of the claimants viz., one son and three daughters, in our view, the Tribunal is justified in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month. Though multiplier ''12'' was applied but in view of the ratio laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , multiplier ''13'' is applicable and since the deceased had five dependants, only l/4th of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards personal expenses, On calculation, it works out to Rs. 9,36,000/- (8,000-2,000 - 6,000 X 12 X 13). In the instant case, the Tribunal has applied ''12'' multiplier and has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Under such circumstances, awarding compensations of Rs. 7,68,000/- can not be said on the higher side. We see no good ground to interfere with the impugned award, In the result, appeal tails and hence rejected. Amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal for payment.