AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J. - Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short �KSRTC�), aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 29th May, 2015 in MVC 3995/2014, 3996/2014 and 3997/2014 of the XIX Addl. SCJ, MACT and XLI ACMM, Bengaluru, (SCCH-17), (for short �MACT�) over the finding attributing 50% contributory negligence and quantum of compensation in MVC 3996/2014, has presented this appeal.
Respondents, though served, are absent and unrepresented.
There is no dispute that on 03-09-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., one Indramma along with another Lakshmamma were riding pillion on the motor cycle bearing certificate of registration TN-29/AA-9447 along with one Kumar, the rider. The bus belonging to the appellant, it was alleged, driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle, whence the rider and the pillion riders succumbed to grievous injuries. Hence, the claim petitions invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the legal heirs of deceased, registered as MVC 3995/2014, 3996/2014 and 3997/2014. This appeal is in respect of MVC 3996/2014 claiming compensation due to death of Smt. Lakshmamma.
The first submission of Sri F.S. Dabali, learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation is that since there were three persons on the motor cycle, the rider was not in a position to control/balance the motor cycle hence the accident, is noticed only to be rejected. The sketch map, Ex.P.5 and panchanama, Ex.P.3 disclose the width of the road as 17ft. and the place of impact as 7ft from the left side of the road. In other words, KSRTC bus i.e., offending motor vehicle had crossed the centre of the road and was travelling on the road beyond the half marked on the road. If that is so, the place of impact for the head on collision between motor cycle and the bus is on the wrong side of the road, as far as KSRTC bus is concerned. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that since there were three persons on the motor cycle, the rider of the motor cycle lost control and dashed against the bus.
Be that as it may, the MACT recorded a finding that the rider of the motor cycle was equally negligent while returning a finding of the rider having contributed to the accident. That finding is not called in question by the respondent/claimants. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality committed in recording the finding on issue No. 1 attributing contributory negligence on both rider of the motor cycle and driver of the bus.
There is force in the submission of learned counsel that in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence that deceased Lakshmamma had an independent source of income was married and left behind her husband, the first claimant and two minor children. The first claimant did not enter the witness box to plead or prove that deceased was not only a house wife but also an employee earning wages every month. In the absence of proof of avocation and income, the MACT was not justified in concluding that the deceased was an earning member contributing Rs. 6000/- per month to add 50% of the said income towards loss of future prospects and deduct �th since she had left behind a husband, children and in laws to award Rs. 14,58,000/-. The ,MACT awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of love and affection, in all Rs. 16,63,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, by the judgment and award impugned.
Reckoning Rs. 40,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased deducting ⅓rd towards her personal expenses as she had left behind husband and two minor children and there was no evidence over in-laws being dependent upon the income of the deceased and applying multiplier 18, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,80,006/- in place of 7 14,58,000/- awarded by MACT towards loss of dependency. It must be observed that MACT was not justified in adding future prospects, since it was not established that deceased was in a regular employment with assured monthly income and the claimants had not made out an exceptional case for addition of loss of future prospects of life. The award of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to husband, though on the higher side, does not call for interference, since Rs. 80,000/- awarded towards love and affection to the two minor children is on lower side and if the said compensation is put together, it translates into just compensation both towards loss of consortium as well as loss of care and guidance for the minors. Award of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses does not call for interference.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. Common judgment and award insofar as it relates to MVC 3996/2014 is modified reducing the compensation from Rs. 16,63,000/- to Rs. 6,85,006/- with interest at 6% per annum and in all other respects remains unaltered. Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the MACT concerned, forthwith. Amount deposited in excess is directed to be refunded to the KSRTC, forthwith.
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in MFA Nos. 6982/2015 and 6984/2015.