Managing Director, KSRTC vs Anitha S. Ravi

K.L. Manjunath, J.—These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by the M.A.C.T., Bangalore in MVC No. 8817/2007, dated 14.10.2011.

The first appeal in MFA No. 2841/2012 is filed by the KSRTC, challenging the liability saddled on the appellant and so also, the quantum of compensation. The connected appeal in MFA No. 3952/2012, is filed by the claimants being not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal seeking enhancement. Therefore, these two appeals are heard together.

The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:

The claimants are the widow, minor daughter and aged parents of one C. Ravi, alias Ravi Channabasappa who died in a road traffic accident on 07.07.2007 on Mangalore-Bangalore NH-48, near Kallahalli gate. According to the claimants, the deceased along with his family members had been to Chikmagalur to attend a marriage of a relative. After the marriage they were returning to Bangalore. The deceased was driving his Maruthi Alto Car bearing KA-03-ME-1903 and he was proceeding near the land of Kallahalli Madlaiah, near Kallahalli gate within the limits of Hirisave Hobli in Channarayapattana Taluk and when his car was near Kallahalli Gate within the limits of Hirisave Police Station limits, from the opposite direction a KSRTC Bus bearing registration No. KA-41-F-087, was coming in a rash and negligent manner and in its attempt to overtake another vehicle, which was ahead of it, crossed the road median and dashed against the Alto Car. As a result of which, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. So also his son, Sathvik and nephew Yashwanth also succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. His widow and daughter Spoorthy who were in car also sustained injuries. The deceased was aged about 45 years, he was working as an Special Assistant to the Chairman of U.B. Group and getting a salary of Rs. 85,795/.- per month and he was maintaining his wife, minor son and minor daughter and so also his aged parents.

The K.S.R.T.C. contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. According to them, the deceased was proceeding towards Bangalore in a rash and negligent manner and crossing the road median dashed against the oncoming KSRTC bus, which was proceeding from Bangalore to Dharmasthala. Therefore, it was contended that the liability cannot be saddled on the KSRTC bus, since the driver was no where responsible for the accident.

In order to prove their respective contentions, the claimants relied upon the evidence of the widow of the claimant, who was also an inmate in the car and one Shri G. Sreenivas was examined as PW-2. The claimants relied upon Exhibits - P1 to P26. On behalf of the KSRTC, the driver of the bus Shri T.G. Shivashankar Murthy, was examined as RW-1 and relied upon Exhibits-R1 and R2. The photographs of the car which met with the accident and the certified copy of the judgment of acquittal of the driver in C.C. No. 1773/2007. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC. The Tribunal also considered the income of the deceased and held that after deducting the Income tax payable, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs. 64,196/- and thereafter 50% of his income has been deducted towards his ''personal expenditure'' on the ground that the deceased was always on foreign tour accompanying his Chairman. Therefore, he was leading a luxurious life and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 53,92,464/- under the head of loss of dependency'' and Rs. 30,000/- under the Conventional Heads. In all, a total compensation of Rs. 54,22,464/- has been awarded as compensation.

Aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal on the question of the negligence and quantum, the K.S.R.T.C., has filed MFA No. 2841/2012. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed MFA No. 3952/2012. Therefore, these two matters are heard together.

According to Shri K.S. Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC, the Tribunal did not consider the evidence let-in by the parties properly. According to him, the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Taking us through the sketch prepared by the police during the course of investigation, Exhibit-P4, he contends that the Tribunal was required to hold that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles. He further contends that the quantum of compensation awarded is on higher side.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that F.I.R. has been lodged by one Sri G. Sreenivas, who has seen the accident who is no way connected to the claimants. According to the FIR due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, crossing the road median dashed the oncoming Maruthi Alto Car. Therefore, the negligence fixed on the Tribunal has to be confirmed.

According to him, the deduction of 50% of income towards personal expenses by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. According to him, 1/4th was required to be deducted since he was maintaining his wife two children and aged parents. He further submits that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on lower and therefore he requests this court to re-appreciate the evidence and award suitable compensation by allowing the appeal filed by the claimants.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have to consider the following two points:

i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence requires to be interfered with?

ii. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced or not?

So far as the first point is concerned, the FIR was lodged by PW-2 who was an independent person and was the resident of the village. According to the FIR, the driver of the KSRTC bus by crossing the road median and taking his vehicle further right had caused the accident, which is also fortified by the sketch prepared by the police. On perusal of the sketch prepared by the police, it is clear to us that the KSRTC bus by crossing the middle portion of the road dashed against the oncoming vehicle. The driver who is examined has not explained what made him to cross the middle portion. On contrary, in examination-in-chief RW-1 has stated as if, the car driver has crossed the middle portion of the road and dashed his vehicle, which is quite contrary to the records produced by the claimants, prepared by the Police during the course of investigation. The driver has also admitted the filing of the charge-sheet against him. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence has to be confirmed. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered against the K.S.R.T.C.

So far as the second point is concerned, the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure, on the ground that he was always been on tour and he used to accompany his Chairman on visiting different countries and always used to travel abroad. According to the Tribunal, the deceased was leading a luxurious life. Therefore, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of income towards ''personal expenditure''. According to us, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be set-aside. Because if the company used to send the deceased to different countries along with the Chairman of the company, the company would meet all his expenditure and as a matter of fact, he would have even saved more money out of the allowances paid to him during, his visit to abroad visit along with the Chairman. Because all his expenditure would be met by the company. Therefore, the deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is bad in law.

When the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was getting a net income Rs. 64,196/- after deducting Income Tax and Professional Tax, the same is accepted by us and we rounded of the income per month as Rs. 64,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged between 41-45 years and was in a permanent job and had future prospects, 30% of the income has to be added towards future prospects, which would work out to Rs. 19,200/-. Therefore, the notional loss of dependency of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 83,200/- per month, out of which we have to deduct 1/4th of the amount towards his personal expenditure as he was maintaining four persons. If we deduct 1/4th out of Rs. 83,200/-, it would be Rs. 62,400/- per month and if the same is multiplied by ''12'' the notional income has to be assessed at Rs. 7,48,800/- p.a. and considering the age we apply multiplier of ''14''. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is worked out as follows: Rs. 1,04,83,200/-

(Rs. 64,000 (add) 30% = Rs. 83,200/-

Rs. 83,200 - 20,800 = Rs. 62,400/- p.m.

Rs. 62,400 x 12 x 14 = Rs. 1,04,83,200/-)

In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- under Conventional Heads. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1,06,83,200/- with interest at 6% per annum. So far as apportionment is concerned, the apportionment as made by the Tribunal shall apply insofar the enhanced compensation also concerned. The amount in deposit is directed to transmitted to the Tribunal.

In the result, the appeal of the claimant is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the K.S.R.T.C. is hereby dismissed.