AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 23-11-1996 passed in MVC No. 1183 of 1991 granting the compensation of Rs. 1,55,226-55 for the respondents for the death of one Ganesha Sheregara who was a passenger in the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 01-F-12 bound from Udupi towards Bangalore.
When the said bus was proceeding after Katpady, a lorry bearing Registration No. CTW 5451 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the hind portion of the bus wherein the deceased, on account of the impact, sustained grievous injuries such as head injury, severe and grievous multiple injuries and fractures as mentioned in column 11 of the petition. Subsequently the injured passenger was shifted to the hospital for medical aid and as such while he was taking treatment succumbed to the injuries on 15-9-1991. Hence the petition was filed by the respondents and has been decided by the MACT, Udupi.
For the respondents, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are examined and Exs. P-l to P-13 are marked. For the appellants, only one witness is examined namely DW-1 and one document Ex. D-l is marked. The Tribunal ultimately held that it was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, the accident took place and further relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows.--
Rs. Ps.
1.
Towards medical expenses
3,626-55
2.
Towards funeral expenses
5,000-00
3.
Towards conveyance charges
1,500-00
4.
Towards mental agony
10,000-00
5.
Towards loss of estate
2,500-00
6.
Towards loss of income
1,32,600-00
Total
1,55,226-55
Heard Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri S.S. Sripathy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Dabali, learned Counsel for respondent 4. The argument of Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned Counsel for the appellants, is two-fold: (1) That the compensation awarded is on the higher side; (2) That the compensation awarded under ''No Fault Liablity'' is No Fault liability and under any circumstance, if the owner of any other vehicles had already shared "No Fault Liability", the appellant 1 cannot be now directed to refund that amount.
As far as the dependency is concerned, there is no dispute. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was able to contribute Rs. 650/- towards the respondent. So for one year, it comes to Rs. 7,800/-. The next question that crops up is the multiplier. The respondent 1 is the mother. The respondent 2 is the brother and respondent 3 is the sister of the deceased. Since the mother was 51 years old and since the deceased was unmarried, the multiplier that could be applied is only 12. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 93,000/-.
It is also in the evidence that the deceased succumbed to the injuries later on. The treatment was given in Manipal Hospital which is admittedly a private hospital. Naturally, the respondents must have spent some amount towards medical expenses. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am inclined to award the following compensation.--
Rs. Ps.
1.
Towards pain and suffering
3,500-00
2.
Towards medical expenses
4,000-00
3.
Towards funeral expenses
3,000-00
4.
Towards conveyance and for carrying the dead body
1,500-00
5.
Towards loss of estate of the deceased
5,000-00
Total
17,000-00
Thus, in all the respondents are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The Tribunal has found that the appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay this compensation. This finding is also not disturbed.
The main contention of Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned Counsel for the appellants is that on no fault liability, the KSRTC has also to be made liable to pay a sum of Rs. 12,500/-. As such the KSRTC should be estopped from contending that it should get back its money contributed under No Fault Liability.
It is pertinent to note that the benefit of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall be referred as ''Act'') is to facilitate the claimants to get some amount quickly pending disposal of the main petition. In other words the introduction of this "No Fault Liability" is to help the bereaved family to get some quick payment. At the time of the disposal of the application u/s 140, it is not possible for the Tribunal to make a detailed enquiry as to the negligence and the liability in case of more than one vehicle being involved. Pending finding on the point of negligence and liability, the Tribunal for the sake of convenience, has passed the order calling upon both the owners to share the liability. But this does not mean that the owner of the vehicle who is not finally liable to pay the compensation, should forego this amount because he has followed the mandate of the Tribunal by his contribution towards no fault liability.
The contention of Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned Counsel for the appellants is that No Fault Liability is No Fault Liability. Ultimately whether the owner of other vehicle held liable or not, he is bound to pay his contribution under No Fault Liability. Under any circumstances, he is not liable to get it back because the concept of No Fault Liability u/s 140 of the Act cannot be diluted under any circumstances. On the face of it, this proposition appears to be lucrative and appealing, but when it is examined in depth, this cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the person who is not the tortfeasor cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. Mr. Sripathy relied upon a decision in the case of Thomas Vs. Mathew N.M. and Others, , wherein it is held as follows.--
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 14 -- No fault liability --Collusion between a motor cycle and car coming from opposite directions and the motor-cyclist sustained injuries -- Claim by motor-cyclist and the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant motor-cyclist himself -- In appeal by the claimant, the finding of negligence was upheld and the claimant then adopted the alternate contention of claim under No Fault Liability -- Whether a claimant who himself is equally answerable to No Fault Liability along with another vehicle owner, can realise compensation from the owner of the other vehicle -- Held, no -- Statute has fixed the liability of the two owners as joint and several and liability is to third parties and not against each other".
We have reached the interesting situation. In the instant case, there are two vehicles. If there is only one vehicle involved in the accident, what has to happen to the insurer if ultimately the Tribunal holds that the accident was not on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, the claimant has to be satisfied with the compensation that can be given u/s 140 of the Act only. Suppose if such an accident has happened on account of composite negligence, then under such circumstances, the owners of the vehicles have to share the amount equally. But in the event the petition is dismissed, all the owners have to pay and wash off their hands. These are very interesting situations that can be arrived at when finally th''e Tribunal dismisses the petition for want of proof of negligence. But when the Tribunal holds that a particular person is liable to pay the compensation as in the present case, it is difficult to call upon the owner of other vehicle who is not responsible for causing of the accident to restrain him from not asking back the contribution amount paid under No Fault Liability. At the cost of the repetition, it has to be stated that importance of No Fault Liability is to enable the claimant/s to get some interim compensation quickly. This section is enacted in order to help the bereaved family at the earliest possible opportunity. Finally the duty is cast upon the Tribunal to find out the liability. The responsibility of the Tribunal is more when more than one vehicle is involved in the accident. The Tribunal also has to pass succinct order to refund the amount to the owner of the vehicle who is not responsible ultimately paid under no fault liability. It is one and the same whether the Tribunal makes an order to refund to the owner of another vehicle who is not liable or if the Tribunal directs ultimately the owner of the responsible vehicle to pay this sum contributed under no fault liability. In the instant case, it is held that the appellants are liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The appellants have already paid a sum of Rs. 12,500/- so the remaining balance has to be deposited in the Court with interest and costs. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 12,500/- shall be refunded to respondent 4. In the light of these observations the following order is passed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation is reduced from 1,55,226.55 to 1,10,000/-. The amount deposited here shall be transferred to MACT, Udupi. The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining balance within two weeks.