Division Manager KSRTC vs Smt Manjula, Niranjan and Hemanth

The appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the tribunal granting compensation of Rs.12,10,000/- with rate of interest @ 6% to the respondents for the death of Jagadeeshmurthy B.N., in a motor vehicle accident. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: It is on 18.11.2009 that Jagadeeshmurthy B.N. and his friend were going on a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-14/W-9887. Jagadeeshmurthy was driving/riding the mortar cycle and his friend was a pillion rider. While they were proceeding towards Arasikatte temple near Arakalagudu, KSRTC bus bearing registration number KA-13/F-1232 came from the opposite direction driven in a negligent and rash manner and hit the motor cycle and due to the impact Jagadeeshmurthy/sustained severe/grievous injuries. He was shifted to the hospital and succumbed to the injuries during treatment. Jagadeeshmurthy was employed in VISP at Bhadravathi and the respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased claimed the compensation for loss of dependency and all the conventional heads. The appellant contested the claim made by the respondents.

During enquiry, PW1 was examined and in the evidence the documents P1 and P9 were got marked The appellant did not examine any witness. The tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties on address of the material on record held actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and as deceased was an employee of VISP, Bhadravathi and his salary was Rs. . 18,313.99 Ps deducting Professional Tax and Income Tax and adopted the split multiplier granting a compensation of Rs. . 11,00,000/-towards loss of dependency and Rs. 30,000/- on conventional heads. Aggrieved by the findings of the tribunal the present appeal has been filed.

I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the First Information Report, FIR lodged, there is no mention of the bus number. Therefore it is her contention that the bus in question was falsely involved and the KSRTC has been made to pay the compensation. She also contends that the tribunal ought to have deducted the bonus from his salary and therefore she claims that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side.

The appellant has produced Ex.P2 which is the FIR and Ex. P3, complaint. The accident occurred on 18.11.2009 at about 10 a.m. and the FIR was lodged to the police at about 13.45 hours on the same day. In the FIR though it is mentioned that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus, the bus number is not mentioned. During the course of the investigation the police have recorded the statement of the witnesses and in the investigation the bus which caused the accident was traced. The said vehicle was seized by the police. Since accident report produced by the claimants the vehicle bearing registration Mo. KA-14/W-9887 was examined by the motor vehicle inspector on 23.04.2009 and the inspector noticed damage to the front portion of the vehicle at 4 places.

It is rather unfortunate that KSRTC has not taken any pain to examine the driver of the bus in question to explain as to why the damage was caused to the said vehicle. Non-examination of the driver of the bus lead to an adverse inference that during the investigation the vehicle number was revealed and the vehicle was seized. The mere fact that the vehicle number was not mentioned in the FIR itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence of the claimants. So the material placed on record in my opinion is sufficient to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle KSRTC bus mentioned therein. Even in the objection statement the accident due to the offending vehicle is not disputed. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the claimants have produced the salary slip at Ex. P9 and it reveals that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. . 18,333.99 Ps The tribunal has deducted the professional tax and the income tax from the gross salary and considering the income and on applying proper multiplier granted compensation towards loss of dependency. Though it is contended that the bonus included in the pay slip has to be deducted, I am of the opinion that the said submission is not acceptable as bonus could have been earned by the deceased even in his lifetime. So taking into consideration the compensation awarded in the context of the documents produced by the claimant, I am of the opinion that it is just and reasonable. In that view of the matter as the appellant has not made out any such grounds to call for interference the appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

The statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be transferred to the concerned tribunal for disbursement. Office is directed to send the records forthwith.