The Managing Director, B.M.T.C. vs Rajamma and Others

N.K. Patil, J—This appeal is by the appellant/Corporation directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 1st February 2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 7840/2012 on the file of the XI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and M.A.C.T. (SCCH-12) at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). The Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and Award, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,54,104/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation on account of the death of the deceased late Sri Nagaraju C. in the road traffic accident. The appellant/Corporation has filed this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and disproportionate to the income of the deceased and the same is liable to be reduced.

The brief facts of the case of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are that, they are wife and daughters of the deceased late Nagaraju C. They have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 27,45,000/- against the appellant - Corporation on account of untimely death of the deceased Nagaraju C. in a road traffic accident that occurred on 07.11.2012 at about 5.45 p.m., contending that the deceased was Attender by profession and was getting salary of Rs. 23,963/- per month as per Ex. P22 for the month of August, September and November 2012 and he was the only bread earner in the family. He met with a road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-01/FA-408, who came from back side and dashed against the Scooter in which the deceased was proceeding. Due to impact, the deceased fell down on the left side of the vehicle and the rear right wheel of the offending bus ran over the deceased and he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

Further, it is the case of the respondents that, 1st respondent is the wife of the deceased, aged about 48 years has lost her companion/husband, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - daughters have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of their father. They have spent considerable amount towards transportation, funeral expenses and rituals. Taking all these relevant aspects into consideration, they have filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation against the appellant herein.

The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in turn after due appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and RW 1 and documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to P22 and Ex. R1 and other material available on record, has allowed the same in part by following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 2 ACC 841 : (2013) ACJ 1403 : (2013) 3 CTC 883 : (2013) 8 JT 288 : (2014) 173 PLR 779 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170 : (2013) 6 SCALE 563 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 awarding compensation of Rs. 20,54,104/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant herein has presented this appeal seeking reduction of compensation.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri K. Nagaraja at the outset that, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding higher compensation towards loss of dependency by assessing the income of the deceased is disproportionate to his service of income and for the reasons that, the deceased was aged about 58 years and he is left with only two years of service. The Tribunal ought not to have determined compensation by adding 50% towards future prospects of the deceased and also adding another 15% towards future prospects by following the judgments in the cases of Sarla Verma and Rajesh. The Tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier method and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency and further erred in not fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased when he has also contributed negligence to the accident. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered or appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified reasonably by fixing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and applying the split multiplier as per the decision of this Court reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sri. Narasubai Joshi @ N.L. Joshi, Sri. Maruthi Joshi and Sri. Badrinatha Joshi, (2014) 4 ACC 326 : (2014) 2 AKR 698 : (2014) ILR (Kar) 4931 : (2014) 3 KarLJ 258 and also an unreported Judgment dated 20th January 2014 passed in M.F.A. No. 25007/2012 and connected case (Smt. Arati and others Vs. Gouspeer Hussainab Makandar and the Divisional Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation considerably.

The respondents/claimants are served and unrepresented.

After careful consideration of the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - Corporation and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after evaluation of oral evidence and other documentary evidence available on record, what emerges is that, the occurrence of the accident and resultant death of the deceased in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. The fact that the claimants are none other than wife, son and daughters of the deceased which is also not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 58 years working as Attender and drawing salary of Rs. 23,963/- per month. The Tribunal is justified in adding 15% towards future prospects of the income of the deceased by following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 2 ACC 841 : (2013) ACJ 1403 : (2013) 3 CTC 883 : (2013) 8 JT 288 : (2014) 173 PLR 779 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170 : (2013) 6 SCALE 563 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 and also placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 for applying the multiplier of ''9''. Further, the Tribunal after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has given valid and cogent reasons in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the judgment has awarded compensation by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarding Rs. 19,84,104/- towards loss of dependency which is just and proper and the same is not called for interference by this Court.

Further, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - Corporation submitted that the compensation awarded under conventional heads is also on the higher side and the same is liable to be reduced considerably.

After consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - Corporation and also the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal is justified in awarding just and reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency as also towards conventional heads considering the age and status of the parties. Therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for.

Regarding negligence, the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation cannot be accepted because the Tribunal after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record has recorded a finding of fact in paragraphs 11 and 12. The said reasoning given by the Tribunal while passing the Judgment is just and proper. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

However, there is no dispute or quarrel regarding the law laid down in the Judgments referred by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, but the said judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same are of no avail to him in this appeal.

Taking all these relevant aspects into consideration, we don''t find any justifiable ground as such to consider the relief sought for in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant/Corporation is dismissed as devoid of merits.

The amount deposited by the appellant - Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.

In view of dismissal of the appeal on merits, the relief sought for in I.A. No. 2/2014 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said I.A. stands dismissed as having become infructuous.