The Divisional Manager K.S.R.T.C. vs Hanmantraya and Others

D.V. Shylendra Kumar

There is a delay of 52 days in preferring this appeal by M/s. KSRTC, Bijapur Division, Bijapur. As I do not find any merit in the appeal itself, the applications for condonation of delay and stay are rejected and appeal is disposed of as under.

Appeal by KSRTC, Bijapur Division, Bijapur u/s 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and order dated 14th October, 2011 passed in MVC. No. 2082/2010 on the file of M.A.C.T No. V, Bijapur at Bijapur.

In this appeal, the appellant which is successor to M/s. KSRTC has questioned the correctness of quantification of compensation payable to the dependents of one Shivappa Dharamashetty who had succumbed to the injuries that he sustained due to the vehicle of the Corporation hitting the two wheeler on which he was riding in an accident that took place on 04.11.2010 while proceeding towards Almel.

The Tribunal having found that the driver of the vehicle owned by the Corporation was negligent in driving the vehicle and was the cause for the accident, has proceeded to quantify the compensation and one of the heads of compensation is the loss of dependency to the claimants.

For such computation the Tribunal had taken income of the deceased to be at Rs. 4,000/- per month and applied multiplier of ''15'' as per the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS V/S DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992 and allowed deduction of 1/5th of the income to his personal expenses of the deceased and arrived total Rs. 5,76,000/- under this head.

It is against this determination the present appeal.

Appearing on behalf of the appellant-Corporation submission of Sri. Shivashankar Manur, Learned Counsel is that the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing deduction of only 1/5th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and that should have been 1/4th even according to the principles enunciated in the case of SARALA VARMA [supra]. It is on this limited aspect, the present appeal.

It is noticed that there were as many as six dependents on the income of the deceased and he also included, there were seven persons. Insofar as estimation of extent of loss of dependency is concerned, while there can be some guidelines and indication as to in what manner the deduction should be allowed towards personal expenses of the deceased himself, there is no hard and fast rule and there are different methods adopted for such purpose. Courts have adopted even unit methods when there are large number of dependents. Having regard to the total compensation determined at sum of Rs. 6,11,000/- and the conservative quantification under other heads, assuming for argument sake there is some slight error resulting in excess award of Rs. 36,000/- due to an error in making deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased, I do not find overall liability that the Corporation was asked to meet is on the higher side than it is otherwise due. Therefore I am of the view that there is no need to entertain this appeal for suitable downward revision of the compensation amount.

Accordingly, the appeal is rejected at the admission stage as one not warranting interference. The statutory amount deposit made by the appellant-Corporation before this Court is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimants.