The Managing Director vs Vijaylaxmi

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—This appeal has been filed challenging the finding on negligence and quantum of compensation granted to the respondents for the death of Gururaj, who is the son of 1st appellant and minor brother of 2nd respondent.

The facts reveal that on 01.09.2009 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased (Gururaj) was standing at city bus stand, opposite PUC Government college, Yadgir, with his friends waiting for the bus. At that time, a bus bearing registration No. KA-33/F-44, driven in a rash and negligent manner hit him and passed over his legs and waist. Thereby, he sustained grievous injuries and during the treatment he died at about 2.30 p.m. at Raichur. The mother and minor brother made a claim for compensation towards loss of dependency and other conventional heads.

The tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing the counsel held that the driver of the bus was negligent. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, granted a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 25,000/- has been granted on other conventional heads. Totally a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- with interest at 6% per annum has been granted as compensation. Aggrieved by the finding on negligence and quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The points that arise for my consideration are:

i. Whether there was any negligence on the part of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident?

ii. Whether the compensation awarded is on the higher side? If so, to what extent?

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased had tried to climb the bus, which'' was moving and the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased. He submits that the deceased was the son of the 1st respondent and minor brother of the 2nd respondent. The deduction ought to have been at 50%.

On other hand, learned counsel for respondents support the judgment and award and submits that the tribunal was justified in imposing the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation.

Perusal of the document produced at Ex. P1, it reveals that the complaint of the accident was filed against the driver of the bus. After the investigation, the charge sheet under Ex. P3 was also filed against him. Though the appellant has examined RW. 1, who is the driver of the bus and he states that the deceased had tried to board the moving bus. Except this witness, there is no other material on record. That apart, against the deceased the complaint would have been filed by RW. 1 and no such efforts were made.

Perusal of the contents of the complaint and also the statement as per Ex. P2, they reveal that the bus hit the deceased who was standing by the side of the road. Therefore, the tribunal was justified in holding that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the 1st respondent is the mother and 2nd respondent is minor brother of the deceased, who was 13 years old when the incident took place. Nagarajayya is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of 2nd respondent and he was died long back, prior to the incident. Therefore, the tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses. As the deceased was educated person, the tribunal has considered his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. So perusal of the evidence relating to the compensation and assessment of income, I do not find any justifiable grounds to call for interference in the impugned judgment and award. So, the points are answered in the negative.

Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

The amount in deposit be transferred to the tribunal.