Vidyarani vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Vijayapura Division

B. Manohar, J.—Appellants are the wife and son of the deceased Siddaaraya alias Siddappa Kumbar who died in the road traffic accident occurred on 3-4-2013, filed this appeal, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 30th day of October, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. XIL, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as �the Tribunal� for short).

It is the case of the claimants that, on 3-4-2013 at about 7.15 p.m., the deceased Siddaraya Kumbar was travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-36/ 1 873 towards Solapur side from Dhulakhed. While the deceased was alighting from the bus, even before receiving any signal from (he Conductor, the driver suddenly moved the bus. Due to that, the deceased Siddaraya lost balance and fell down from the bus and sustained grievous injuries. Immdiately, he was admitted to the Primary Health Center, Zalaki. Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. In the claim petition, it was contended that the deceased was preparing mud pots and earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the accident had occurred and the deceased died. Due to the death of bread earner, the claimants are suffering mental agony and facing financial crisis. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondent-KSRTC filed written statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver. Due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself, he fell down from the bus and also the compensation claimed is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. In order to prove their case, the wife of deceased was examined as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex.Pl to Ex.P6. On behalf of the respondent, none of the witnesses were examined and no document has been marked.

The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and taking into consideration the spot panchanama, MVI report and charge-sheet, the Tribunal held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries. The claimants are wife and son of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. Though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 30 years. Hence, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- p.m., deducting ⅓rd towards personal expenditure, applying the multiplier 17, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 40,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal mainly contending that while assessing the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has taken the income of deceased only at Rs. 5,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. The accident occurred on 3-4-2013. The Tribunal ought to have taken the income of more than Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Even the income of an agricultural coolie or a daily wager in the Government Department is taken as Rs. 7,000/- p.m. In the instant case, the deceased was a mud potter by profession and he cannot be treated either as an agricultural coolie or a daily wager. The first claimant has lost her husband at the young age of 25 years and the son lost the love and affection of his father at the age of 2 years. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.

On the other hand, Sri. Sharanabasappa M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.

The records clearly disclose that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC, the accident had occurred on 3-4-2013 and the deceased died in the said accident. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to actionable negligence has become final. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal while awarding compensation has taken the income of deceased as Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2013. The income of an agricultural coolie or a daily wager working in the Government Department is being taken at Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Even in Lok Adalath also, in the absence of necessary proof regarding income, the income will be taken at Rs. 7,000/- p.m. In the present case, the deceased was a mud potter by profession and he would earn more than Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Hence, taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- p.m. deducting ⅓rd towards his personal expenditure, applying the multiplier of 17 since, the deceased was aged about 30 years as per the post-mortem report, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 9,52,000/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 6,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the first claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and the second claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Further the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,27,000/- as against Rs. 7,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,07,000/-. Accordingly, I pass the following :

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 30-10-2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. XIL, Bijapur in MVC No. 647/2013 is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,27,000/- as against Rs. 7,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.