The Managing Director, KSRTC vs Mahadevamma and Others

S.N. Satyanarayana, J—Respondent KSRTC in MVC. No. 1904/2013 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru, has come up in this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 6.9.2013 so far as it pertains to quantum of compensation and also on the ground that there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased Siddaraju in causing accident dated 11.12.2013 resulting in his death.

Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

The proceedings in MVC. No. 1904/2013 is initiated by the widow and children of deceased Siddaraju, who is victim of road traffic accident dated 11.2.2013 involving KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-42/F. 1279. The accident which has taken place on the aforesaid day in front of the house of Smt. Sharadamma near Byanapalya bus stop on Bengaluru-Kanakapura highway is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that claimants before the tribunal are widow and children of deceased Siddaraju, who died in the aforesaid accident. In the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 to 3 herein, they have contended that deceased Siddaraju was working as a mason and was earning a sum of Rs. 600/- per day and hence sought for compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards loss of dependency, under conventional heads and the expenses incurred for his treatment from the date of accident till date of his death.

In the proceedings before tribunal, first claimant adduced evidence as PW. 1. In support of their claim, claimants produced and relied on 16 documents. On behalf of respondent, driver of bus was examined as RW. 1. The tribunal on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to allow the claim petition awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 9,51,176/-. The respondent KSRTC being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also in saddling liability on it to pay entire compensation has come up in this appeal challenging quantum as well as liability.

Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as contesting respondents, claimants before the tribunal. On going through the lower court record, it is clearly seen that in the statement of objections there is no specific defence raised by the appellant herein to the effect that there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased in causing the accident. On going through the entire material on record there is nothing on record to demonstrate that, infact there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased. On the contrary, it is seen that the accident has taken place in the middle of village limits, namely Byanapalya near the bus stop where buses would normally stop. It is expected that near the place where bus stops, people would be moving from here to there. Therefore, it is the responsibility of driver of bus, who is passing by that road to show extra caution and care to avoid any pedestrian who is crossing the road is being hit. In the instant case, accident has taken place as admitted by KSRTC itself near Byanapalya bus stop. Therefore, the allegation of contributory negligence, which is raised for the first time in this appeal is without basis. On the contrary, the driver of bus should have been more cautious while passing through the village at the relevant place where accident has taken place. When series of claim petitions and appeals are seen, it is normally the drivers of State Transport Corporation buses who cause accident with impudence, many a time taking the life of innocent pedestrian.

This proceedings is yet another example for such rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of KSRTC. When the compensation awarded is less than just and proper compensation, the KSRTC in all fairness ought to have satisfied the same, instead it has come up in this frivolous appeal raising unwanted grounds for the first time in the appeal trying to unnecessarily cause inconvenience to claimants in receiving compensation, for which they are rightfully entitled to. In that view of the matter, this Court find that the grounds urged by KSRTC contending that there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased Siddaraju, is without any basis and the same is required to be rejected.

Now coming to the ground which is raised with reference to quantum of compensation, this Court would observe as under:

It is argued by the learned counsel for appellant-KSRTC that the tribunal has taken the higher multiplier i.e., 15 when admittedly deceased Siddaraju had crossed 40 years as on the date of accident and he had stepped into 41st year. Therefore, taking the multiplier of 14 would be more appropriate and the tribunal has committed an error in this regard. It is also stated that while awarding compensation under conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- is awarded where the normal practice of this Court and other coordinate benches in awarding compensation under conventional head is not in excess of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This Court find that there is force in the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, what is to be seen simultaneously is that the accident has taken place in the year 2013. In such a case where the claimants are unable to establish the avocation and income of deceased, normal practice is that the courts would take the income of deceased notionally at Rs. 7,000/- pm. In the instant case, a serious error is committed by the tribunal in taking the income of deceased at Rs. 5,000/- pm. Though an appeal or cross objection is not filed by the claimants, it does not hinder the right of this Court to independently assess just and proper compensation based on the material on record.

In that view of the matter, this Court feel that in the instant case what is to be done is reassessing the compensation taking the income of deceased notionally at Rs. 7,000/- pm. Since the deceased was aged 41 years and died leaving him surviving his widow and minor children, future prospects is required to be considered. Hence, by adding another 30% towards future prospects, the monthly income should be taken for assessment of compensation, which would come to Rs. 9,100/-. Out of that, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal upkeep of deceased Siddaraju, what is available to the family is 2/3rd i.e., Rs. 6,066/- pm., or Rs. 72,792/- pa. If the same is multiplied by 14, the total compensation that claimants would be entitled to towards loss of dependency is in a sum of is Rs. 10,19,088/-. In addition to that claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under conventional heads and not Rs. 1,46,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is added as compensation under conventional heads. In addition to these two heads, the compensation which is awarded by tribunal towards medical expenses at Rs. 25,000/- incurred by family for the treatment of deceased from the date of accident till date of death is retained. With this, the revised compensation that claimants are entitled to is Rs. 11,44,088/-. In other words, claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,92,912/-.

In the result, the appeal filed by KSRTC is allowed in part in taking the lesser multiplier of 14 instead of 15 taken by the tribunal by reducing the compensation awarded under conventional heads from Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,92,912/- payable with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till date of payment of entire amount, which the appellant herein shall deposit within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment in this proceedings.

From out of the enhanced compensation, second and third respondents herein are entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, which shall be deposited in their name in any nationalized bank for a period of 10 years with right to receive periodical interest by the first respondent. From out of the balance amount available, Rs. 20,000/- is ordered to be released in favour of first respondent herein and the remaining balance amount shall be deposited in her name in any nationalized bank for a period of 5 years with right to receive periodical interest. In view of the appeal being allowed in part and consequently, the compensation awarded by tribunal is enhanced, the entire amount in deposit is ordered to be sent to tribunal for disbursement to claimants.