AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal and the Cross Objection are respectively filed by the Corporation and the Claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 16th August 2005 passed in M.V.C. No.325/2005, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dm.) and AMACT, Davanagere (for short Tribunal).
The Tribunal by its Judgment and Award, awarded a sum of Rs. . 6,35,600/- as compensation, with interest @ 6%p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation on account of the death of the deceased Vijaya Singh in the road traffic accident
While the Corporation has filed the appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also fastening the liability on it without noticing the comributory negligence on the part of the deceased is not justifiable, the learned Counsel for the Cross-objector/claimants contended that the quantum of compensation awarded toy the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement.
We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in the instant appeal and the cross-objection.
The brief facts of the case are :
Claimant No. 1 is the mother of the deceased, claimant No. 2 is the wife and claimant Nos.3 and & are the children of deceased Vijaya Singh. They have filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. .35,85,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. on account of the untimely death of Vijaya Singh in the road traffic accident that occurred on 03.02.2000. In spite of giving medical treatment they could not save the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries on 09.02.2000. They farther contended that be was working as expert Mechanic in Kirloskar Company and also doing private mechanical work alter the office hours. He was getting salary of Rs. .5,489/- per month The claimants contended that on account of untimely death of the deceased they lost love and affection and economical status and the deceased was the only earring member in the family of the claimants. Due to untimely death of deceased the mother has lost her beloved son. The claimant No.2 who is the wife of the deceased had lost her life partner in her young age and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are children of deceased have test their father and they are subjected to great mental shock, torture, agony and hardship due to untimely death of the deceased. On the above facet and circumstances the claimants have claimed compensation against the appellant - Corporation and its Driver.
The said mattes had come up for consideration before the Tribunal The Tribunal after assessing, the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant documents and the avocation of the deceased and dependency of the mother and wife, minor children has awarded a sum of Rs.6,35,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Not being satisfied with the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Corporation and the claimants have filed the instant appeal and the cross-objections respectively.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the Corporation is that the Tribunal is not justified in (sic) the contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the offending vehicle belonging to the appellant Corporation, As a matter of fact, the Driver of the vehicle was driving in a moderate speed at the time of accident i.e. in the early morning and there was full mist and there was cloudy weather and the Driver of the Bus has taken due care and caution while driving the vehicle and the head lights also were put on by the Driver. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lerry the accident took place, This aspect of the matter has not been considered nor appreciated by the Tribunal and it has fastened the entire liability on the Corporation alone. He further submitted that the compensation awarded is also on the higher side and the bonus amount of Rs. . 6,950/- awarded is not permissible. Therefore the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by reducing the quantum of compensation awarded. by the Tribunal and also fasten the contributory negligence on the pert of drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident
As against this, the learned Counsel for cross-objectors/claimants vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation on account of the untimely death of the diseased as the deceased was an expert mechanic and doing private work. The Tribunal not taken into account that after the completion of the work, the deceased used to work in a private garage and the quantum of income of the deceased was more than Rs. . 15,000/- p.m. This as pect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified and further he submitted that a sum of Rs. . 69,050/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of bonus of the deceased is just and proper and does not call for interference.
After careful consideration of the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, the only point that arise for consideration is :
Whether the qumitum of compensation awarded, by the Tribunal is just and proper ?
The undisputed facts of the case are that the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased. Farther, it is not in dispute that the age of the deceased was 49 years and working as Expert Mechanic at Kirloskar Company and drawing salary of Rs. . 5,469/- p.m. The Tribunal has rightly rounded it off to(sic) 3,500/- and the same is accepted, So for as the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants that in addition to the income the deceased was working as mechanic in a private garage is concerned, except making statement, giving oral evidence, no credible documents to establish that he was getting additional income is produced by way of showing statement of account; hank account or salary slip Issued by the private garage where be was working after working hours. therefore in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly accepted the oral evidence and the credible documents therefore, we accept the salary of the deceased as Rs. . 5,500/- per month, out of which, if we deduct 1/3rd ((sic)1,833/-); the remaining amount comes to (sic).3,567/-, and the age of the deceased was 48 years and the appropriates multiplier applicable is ''13'' in the light of the judgment of Apes: Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, Accordingly, the compensation in respect of loss of dependency works out to (sic) 5,72,052/- (i.e. Rs. . 3667 x 12 x 131, as against Rs. . 5,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In view of the facts and circums tancee referred to above a sum of Rs. . 45,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads i.e., loss of consortium less of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses and in all the appellants/claimants are entitled for Rs. . 6,17,052/- and in addition to Rs. . 69,050/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of bonus In all the respondents/ cross-objectors are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. . 6,86,103/- as against Rs. . 6,35,600/- There will be an enhancement of Rs. . 50,502/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
So far as the specific ground taken by the learned Counsel for the cross-objectors in respect of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the accident ha(r) happened, the same cannot be accepted and the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence of the eye witness. He also submitted that the driver of the bus who caused the instant accident was charge-sheeted and the case was registered against the driver of the bus and also the Police authorities after doing investigation of the matter filed charges sheet as per Ex.P10. Further, the evidence of PW-2 who is hearsay witness has also deposed that it in the rash and negligent act of the Driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus belonging to the appellant Corporation that caused the accident.
So far an fixing negligence on the driver of the bus is concerned, after appreciation of oral evidence of PW-3, it clearly goes to establish that the act of the Driver of the bus in a task and negligent manner caused the accident coupled with the documentary evidence such as Ex.P1 - FIR, Ex.F2 - P.M. Report, Ex.P3 - two tickets affixed on white paper pertaining to Bue belonging to Corporation and Ex.F12 - Notice issued by the Police to the claimant. All these documents establish beyond reasonable doubt that due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus belonging to appellant - corporation, as explained above, the accident has occurred. On the said finding of fact recorded, the Tribunal after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has fastened the liability on the Corporation.
In the light of the facts and circumstances referred above, the appeal filed by the appellant - Corporation is dismissed as devoid of merits. The cross-objection filed by the claimants/cross-objectors is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by Rs. . 50,502/ - with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
The Appellant - Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the tribunal including the enhanced compensation awarded In this appeal within a period of three weeks from the data of receipt of copy of this Judgment and Award. The enhanced amount along with interest shall be released is favour of the cross-objector/No.1 immediately on deposit of the said sum. The enhanced amount of Rs. . 50, 502/- shall be released in favour of the petitioner No.2/Crosse-objector No.2 immediately on deposit, On. account of the death of the mother of the deceased during the pendency of the appeal, the amount deposited in the name of mother of the deceased /claimant No.1 shall be withdrawn and re-deposited in the name of 2nd claimant/cross-objector No.2 Smt. Geetha, the. wife of the deceased in. a Nationalised Bank or Semi-Nationalised Bank for a period of five years and she is entitled to withdraw the interest accrual periodically.
The amount in deposit by the Corporation is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith,
Office to draw the award accordingly