AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-19) [the ''Tribunal'', for short] in MVC No.1004/2014.
The facts in brief are:
That the claimants filed the petition seeking compensation for the death of her son Ramesh who was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-53-EA-6726 at the time of motor vehicle accident which occurred on 10.02.2014. It was contended that the actionable negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-FA-685 was the cause for the accident. As a result, the victim sustained grievous injuries and died. The appellant- Corporation filed the objections and contested the claim. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding total compensation of Rs.8,73,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, fixing the liability on the appellant- Corporation owing to the negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC bus. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation is in appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order on liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded.
Learned counsel Sri.D.Vijayakumar, appearing for the appellant would contend that a specific ground was urged by the appellant-Corporation in the written statement that the police officials have filed a false case in connivance with the claimant against the driver of the bus, though he was not responsible for the said accident. It was further contended that on that particular day the route No.316M/1 was assigned to the driver from Kempegowda Bus Stand to Songenahalli, at about 6.05 p.m., near Om Pharmaceuticals, road was blocked without giving way for the other vehicles to pass on. As such, the driver of the said bus stopped the bus at 5 to 6 meters from that spot and went to the spot along with the other passengers to ascertain the reasons and found that two motorcycles collided due to which one person was seriously injured. After getting the way cleared for the bus to pass through, the driver took his bus and proceeded on the said route and completed the scheduled trip. On the next day, i.e., on 11.02.2014, the said bus was stopped by the Avalahalli police and took the bus to the police station along with the driver on the premise that the said bus caused the accident on 10.02.2014 and the complaint has been lodged against the driver of the bus to that effect, despite the driver of the bus denied the same. These contentions were substantiated by the evidence of the driver who was examined as RW-1. The Tribunal overlooking these aspects fixed the negligence on the driver of the bus. Learned counsel submitted that the vehicle was falsely implicated in order to make unlawful gain by claiming compensation. It is the contention of the Corporation that bus was not involved in the accident. In addition to this, it was argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
Learned counsel Sri.K.T.Gurudevaprasad, appearing for the respondent/claimant, supporting the impugned judgment and order submitted that the Tribunal rightly appreciating the evidence on record, fixed the liability on the Corporation and awarded compensation of Rs.8,73,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which is just and proper and the same cannot be found fault with.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it emerges that the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on the fateful day. The evidence of PW-2 - rider of the motorcycle with whom the deceased was traveling as a pillion clearly discloses that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the BMTC bus was the cause for the accident. Due to the said impact, deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same while shifting him to the Government hospital, Hosakote. The appellant cross-examined the said witness but nothing positive has been elicited to establish that the bus was falsely implicated. It is true that the appellant- Corporation has examined the driver of the offending vehicle as RW-1. Except the ipse-dixit statements of the said witness, no other independent witness was examined to substantiate the contention of false implication of the BMTC bus by the police officials in connivance with the claimant. It is apparent from the records that the conductor of the bus was present in the bus at the time of the accident but no efforts were made by the Corporation to examine the said conductor or any other passenger/person to show that the bus was not involved in the accident. It is mere say of the RW-1 that some other motor vehicle was involved in the accident. But no particulars of the said vehicle are forthcoming from the records. Thus, it is clear that except the vague allegations against the police officials, no other substantial evidence is placed on record to disprove the vehicle in question has caused the accident. In the circumstances, on appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question.
It is evident that the accident in question occurred on 10.02.2014 at about 06.05 p.m. The complaint was lodged by the rider of the vehicle on 11.02.2014 at 07.15 p.m., as per Ex.P2. It is obvious that the person involved in the accident was under shock and trauma besides losing his brother-in-law - pillion rider. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Immediately in the early morning of the next day, the complaint was lodged alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question. Said delay is normal in the circumstances and cannot be a ground to deny the compensation. It is unrealistic to expect a person to rush to the police station instead of attending to the medical treatment of the victim of the accident. It is evident that on the way to the hospital, the victim succumbed to the injuries. Hence, this Court does not find any ground in the arguments of the Corporation in so far as the delay in lodging the complaint is considered.
The Corporation has placed much reliance on Ex.R1, the complaint said to have been lodged by the driver of the offending vehicle. The said Ex.R1 was extensively analyzed by the Tribunal and it was held that neither any acknowledgement of the said complaint nor any document was placed to consider the said complaint being lodged before the jurisdictional police. No material evidence was placed on record to show that the said complaint was registered before the jurisdictional police nor any action was taken by the concerned. On the other hand, the police documents more particularly Ex.P7 - charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle establishes that he had caused accident by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. No details of any other motor vehicle are placed on record to satisfy the plea of other motor vehicle involved in the accident. The IMV report also supports the case of the claimants in view of the damage caused to the offending vehicle. The police officials being the public functionaries have no animosity or vengeance against the driver of the offending vehicle to fix the negligence on his part if the vehicle was not really involved in the accident. Considering all these aspects, it cannot be held that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in order to
extract the compensation amount. Hence, the first point in as much as the aspect of liability deserves to be negated and is accordingly rejected.
As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is discernable that the Tribunal considering the vital factors namely, the age of the deceased, his occupation and number of dependents, awarded the compensation. The deceased was aged about 22 years and was working as helper (contract labourer) at M/s. S.C.K. Enterprises and drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 are the pay slips issued by M/s. S.C.K. Enterprises of Medrich Company. Considering these aspects, following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of SANTOSH DEVI V/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in 2012 (6) SCC 421, 40% of the income is added towards the future prospects. Awarding of future prospects considering the
age and occupation of the victim of the road traffic accident cannot be held to be erroneous. Considering these aspects, the total compensation of Rs.8,73,200/- awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads cannot be construed excessive or exorbitant at any stretch of imagination.
No valid ground made out by the appellant- Corporation to interfere with the well reasoned order. Hence, appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all the pending IAs are consigned to file.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement.