AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the MACT Kolar in M.V.C. No. 395 of 1994 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- for the death of one Shekar alias Gunashekaran, husband of the first respondent and father of the second and third respondents. The deceased was working as driver of the lorry bearing No. TN-23-Z 2323.
Sri Lingappa, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two points for consideration namely contributory negligence and the excess compensation awarded as the salary of the deceased was not at all Rs. 1,500/- p.m. According to him, the right side of both vehicles namely APRTC bus and the lorry are damaged and only unfortunately the driver of the lorry died. Merely the driver of the APRTC was not seriously injured does not mean that he was negligent. On the other hand, Mr. Gopalakrishna, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the accident has taken place on the left side of the road. The respondents have examined one eye-witness whereas the appellant did not care to examine any of the witnesses. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal be not disturbed.
According to the case of the respondents on 27-2-1994, the deceased Gunashekar was proceeding on N.H. Road towards Madras driving the lorry bearing No. TM 23 Z 2323 at moderate speed, at about 10.p.m. when the said lorry came near Ajjappanahalli gate on Kolar-Madras Road, the APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 3889 which was coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high-speed came and dashed violently against the lorry. As a result of the impact, the front portion of the lorry was crushed and the driver of the lorry sustained grievous injuries and finally he succumbed to them in the SNR Hospital, Kolar.
The contention of Sri Lingappa, learned Counsel for the appellant is that both the vehicles are damaged and both the drivers were injured and the Tribunal ought to have held that the negligence is 50%. This submission is not accepted for the simple reason the appellant has not made efforts to examine any witness on his behalf. When such is the case the submission that there was contributory negligence cannot be accepted. Moreover, the accident has taken on the left side i.e., on the correct side of the lorry driver. It shows that the driver of the APSRTC bus was negligent. Merely the right side of the lorry is also damaged does not mean that the deceased contributed for the occurrence of this accident. In view of this I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the MACT.
Mr. Lingappa, learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the driver as Rs. 1,500/- p.m without any documents. The judicial notice can be taken in such matters. For the drivers of the heavy vehicle naturally the heavy wages are also paid in addition to bata. It is difficult to draw an inference that such driver used to earn less than Rs. 100/- per day. In addition to this, the drivers also demand bata whenever they go out. It is not disputed that the deceased was not the driver of the vehicle. Hence MACT has rightly taken the judicial notice regarding the income of the deceased.
Sri Lingappa, learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the multiplier 13 ought to have been applied in this case. The Tribunal placing the reliance on the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others v Trilok Chandra and Others, ILR 1996 Kar. 2127 (SC), has applied 15 multiplier. Hence, no error is committed while applying the multiplier also. Hence in my opinion the Tribunal has not committed an error in awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/-. In the result the appeal stands dismissed. Sri Lingappa also submits that he deposited Rs. 25,000/- at the time of filing this appeal and subsequently he has also deposited a sum of Rs. 70,000/- on 22-10-1997 before the MACT, Kolar.
DECREE OF APPELLATE COURT (Order 41, Rule 35, Code of Civil Procedure) H.C. No. 32-A
ORDER
This miscellaneous first appeal preferred against the judgment and award of the Court of the I Additional District Judge and MACT, Kolar, in M.V.C. No. 395 of 1994 on its file dated the 1st day of October, 1996 coming on for hearing on the 20th day of January, 1998 in the presence of Sri G. Lingappa, Advocate for the appellant and Sri Gopalakrishna for Sri T.V. Ramesh, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3.
And for the reasons stated in the judgment it is ordered and decreed that this miscellaneous first appeal be and is hereby dismissed.
Note.-As per the endorsement in the order sheet dated 27-4-1998 no amount has been deposited in this Court.
And it is further ordered and decreed that there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.