The Divisional Controller, Divisonal Office, Nekrtc Bagalkot vs Sunanda & Ors.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant -N.E.K.R.T.C. (for short ‘Corporation’), calling in question the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment and award dated 6^th August, 2024 passed in MVC No.853/2022 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XII, Vijayapura.

The present appellant was respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal, whereas, the present respondents were the petitioners before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to by their respective ranks assigned to them before the Tribunal.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as under:

On 14.05.2022, at about 12-00 noon, one person by name Ramagondappa Alagond, was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19/EL-6870 from Vijayapura towards Bagalkot. It was the specific case of the petitioners that when said Ramagondappa was so proceeding near Gangadevi Temple, Kolhar, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-1614 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the motorcycle ridden by the said Ramagondappa.

It was further contended that on account of the impact, Ramagondappa sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The petitioners further asserted that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of Ramagondappa -deceased.

The record discloses that the petitioners instituted MVC No.853/2022 seeking compensation on account of the death of Ramagondappa Alagond (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), attributing the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death exclusively to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus.

Upon presentation of the claim petition, the same came to be registered and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal, who is the appellant herein, entered appearance and filed its written statement, stoutly contesting the claim petition.

Upon completion of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed three issues for its consideration. The parties thereafter adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence. Upon conclusion of the evidence, the learned Tribunal heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and award. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,69,980/- to the petitioners, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant – Corporation has approached this Court, principally contending that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 5 while assessing the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased was aged about 70 years as on the date of the accident. On the said premise, it is contended that the impugned judgment and award is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the accident occurred due to the negligence attributable to the deceased himself and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant - Corporation.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be apposite to refer to the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation^{11.(2009) 6 SCC 121}. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while laying down the appropriate multiplier to be adopted with reference to the age of the deceased, has held that the appropriate multiplier in respect of a person falling within the age group of 61 to 65 years is ‘5’.

It is no doubt true that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid decision, has not in express terms, prescribed the multiplier of 5 in respect of persons aged beyond 65 years. Nevertheless, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principle underlying the prescription of multiplier 5 for the age group of 61 to 65 years can reasonably and justifiably be extended to persons who have crossed the age of 65 years.

The aforesaid view is fortified by a plain reading of the relevant portion of the judgment, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the selection of the multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court has taken judicial notice of the well-recognized realities of human life namely, that with the advancement of age, a person, whether male or female, ordinarily undergoes a gradual decline in physical strength and mental faculties. Such decline has a corresponding bearing upon the person's earning capacity and ability to continue to undertake work with the same degree of physical and mental vigor.

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, once a person crosses the age of 65 years, whether, he is aged 70 years or even 80 years, there cannot ordinarily be any improvement in his physical capacity or earning potential by reason of the advancement of age. However, this does not necessarily imply that a person, upon attaining the age of 65 years, ceases altogether to possess the capacity, inclination or willingness to earn, work or discharge his responsibilities.

Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the multiplier of 5, as prescribed for the age group of 61 to 65 years, can appropriately be adopted even in respect of a deceased who had crossed the age of 65 years as on the date of the accident. Consequently, the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Corporation that no multiplier could have been applied merely because the deceased was aged about 70 years, cannot be accepted.

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised another contention, namely, that the deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. According to the learned counsel, at the relevant point of time, the deceased had ridden his motorcycle on the opposite lane of the road and therefore, the accident was the result of the exclusive negligence of the deceased. It is further contended that the evidence available on record, when appreciated in its proper perspective, supports the case of the appellant - Corporation.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners would contend that a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was not responsible, in any manner, for occurrence of the accident.

In view of the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully examined and re-appreciated the entire material available on record.

It is true that the appellant has specifically pleaded in its statement of objections that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. However, a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 does not disclose any material elicited in their cross-examination, which would establish that the deceased was exclusively responsible for occurrence of the accident. In the absence of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence establishing the alleged exclusive negligence of the deceased, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the accident occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the deceased.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following: