AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the claimants is that on 11.12.2010 at 10.00 p.m. the deceased Ranganatha and his friends were travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing No. KA 04-4219 towards Kunigal near Bilidevalaya on NH 48, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-18-F-253 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tata Sumo as a result of the impact the deceased fell down and died. The LRs of the deceased namely, his wife and minor children filed the claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor vehicles Act. The tribunal held that the driver of the KSRTC as negligent in causing the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,70,000/- along with 6% interest. Seeking enhancement the claimants have filed MFA No. 2732/2012. Questioning the liability to satisfy the award as well as the excessive grant of compensation the KSRTC has filed MFA No. 4791/2012.
Heard counsels and examined the records.
The contention of the KSRTC is that the driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident. Reliance is placed on Ex. R-1 namely, the photographs to show that the accident took place on the left side of the road in which the KSRTC bus was travelling. Therefore, it could be established that the Tata Sumo vehicle came towards the right side of the road and dashed against the KSRTC bus. In contrast Ex. P-3 is the sketch of the scene of offence, wherein it could be seen that the contention as advanced by the learned counsel for the KSRTC runs contrary to Ex. P-3. On examination of Ex. P-3 it could be seen that the Tata Sumo went and dashed against the KSRTC bus. The damage to the KSRTC bus is to the right side of the bus. Placing reliance on Ex. P.3 we have no hesitation to hold that the driver of the KSRTC was negligent in causing the accident. The tribunal on considering the material was also of the view that the accident was due to the driver of the KSRTC bus. Therefore, the contention of the counsel appearing for KSRTC on this count is unsustainable.
So far as enhancement is concerned, the claimant relies on Exs. P-9 and P-10 which are the pay slip and the letter issued by the Chaitanya Package Industry wherein the gross salary of the deceased was shown as Rs. 13,017/- as on 9-4-2010, Rs. 15,207/- as on 10-12-2010 and Rs. 7,365/- for 15 days as on 18-12-2010. An application has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 seeking production of Form No. 16 issued by the employer of the deceased in terms whereof the gross income of the deceased is shown as Rs. 1,75,000/- per annum. Hence, it is contended that the application be allowed and the compensation be granted on the basis of the additional document. However, the learned counsel appearing for KSRTC contends that the said document is not authenticated and that the claimants would have to establish the document. Since the claim in terms of Form No. 16 has not been established the question of entertaining the application herein and granting compensation on that basis would be improper.
On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that based on the documents sought to be produced herein it would be only just and necessary that a liberty be granted to the claimants to establish the said document and so also to the respondent KSRTC to dispute the same Under these circumstances, it would be improper for this Court to consider the said document at this stage. Consequently, it is just and necessary to remand the matter to the tribunal to consider the additional documents sought to be filed by the claimants as well as other documents for establishing the annual income of the deceased.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the KSRTC, MFA No. 4791/2012 is dismissed. MFA No. 2732/2012 is allowed by remanding the matter to the tribunal with a direction to consider the additional documents sought to be produced by the claimants in accordance with law by affording an equal opportunity to the respondents to counter the same. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The parties to appear before the tribunal on 2nd December, 2014, without further notice.
The amount in-deposit to be transmitted to the tribunal for necessary orders.
In view of the accident occurred in 2010, the tribunal to pass appropriate orders within period of 3 months from the date of first appearance.