Yashodamma vs Ravindra

K.L. Manjunath, J.—This is claimants'' appeal. The present appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petition passed by the Fast Track Court-V, MACT, Mysore, dated 20.4.2012.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The claimants are the widow and children of one Puttaraju who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 21.6.2008 at about 9.30 a.m. in the junction of JLB Road and Devaraj Urs Road in Mysore. According to the claimants, the deceased was riding his Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing registration No. KA-01-G-1680 on Devaraj Urs road towards D.C. Office (East to West). According to them, he had almost crossed the junction, on account of the green signal given to him by the traffic police. The KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F-7919 which was proceeding from Ramaswamy Circle towards Metropole Hotel (South to North), without noticing the stop signal given by the traffic police, suddenly jumped the junction and dashed against the scooter of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries. He was dragged to an distance of 30 metres. He was shifted to Apollo BGS Hospital, Mysore, and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 11.15 a.m. A criminal case was registered based on the FIR lodged by the Police Constable who was controlling the traffic at the junction. Charge sheet was filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus. KSRTC contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC. On the contrary, without noticing the KSRTC bus, the deceased Puttaraju without even wearing the helmet, crossed the signal and dashed against the bus. Therefore, KSRTC contended that the claim petition has to be dismissed.

To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined namely P.W.1 - widow of the deceased and P.W.2 -Police Constable who was controlling the traffic at the junction and in support of their claim before the Tribunal, the claimants have produced exhibits P1 to P12. The respondent examined one witness namely RW.1 and relied upon exhibits R1 to R13.

The Tribunal after considering the evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and dismissed the claim petition even without computing the income. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence has to be set-aside, since the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of P.W.2 properly, so also the charge-sheet and sketch produced by the claimants. According to him, P.W.2 has categorically deposed before the Tribunal that there was no permission for the KSRTC bus driver to proceed further from the junction because the Police Constable had given stop signal to the vehicles which were coming from Ramaswamy Circle towards Hunsur road. Inspite of the same, the KSRTC bus driver took the vehicle to his left side and proceeded from JLB Road to Hunsur road. As a result of which, he dashed against the scooter of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 has not been properly appreciated. He, therefore, requested the Court to re-appreciate the evidence of the claimants'' witnesses and hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus. He further submits that question of negligence is wrongly fastened on the deceased. Instead of remanding the matter, he requested the Court to reconsider the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, since the deceased was working in Police Department and his salary and age are not in dispute.

Per contra, learned counsel for the KSRTC submits that the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence requires to be confirmed because P.W.2 is an interested witness since he is working as Police Constable and the deceased was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 has been rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal. In that circumstance, he requested the Court to dismiss the appeal and also submits that if the question of negligence is held against the KSRTC, he has no objection to compute compensation because income and age of the deceased are not in dispute.

Therefore, we have considered the following two points:--

"(1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence is perverse and liable to be set-aside?

(2) What would be the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants?"

So far as point No. (1) is concerned, admittedly P.W.2 -Police Constable was controlling traffic in the junction of JLB road and D. Devaraj Urs road junction in Mysore. According to him, he had given hand signal to proceed further to the vehicles which were coming from Devaraj Urs road towards D.C. Office and he had also given stop signal to the vehicles which were coming from Ramaswamy Circle towards Metropole Hotel. According to him, he had not given free signal to the KSRTC bus. Inspite of that, jumping the signal, the driver of the KSRTC bus proceeded towards Hunsur road while at that time, the deceased had almost crossed the junction and he was about to enter into Hunsur road. The Tribunal has not considered the evidence of P.W.2 properly. As a matter of fact, the Court on its own had put a question to P.W.2 that if some vehicles were stopped in front of KSRTC bus, how the KSRTC bus could move in the absence of other vehicles proceeding further, for which P.W.2 has given a categorical answer that there was sufficient space for KSRTC bus to take his vehicle to his left side to proceed towards DC office road and thereafter, there is no cross-examination by the counsel for the KSRTC and the Tribunal without considering this crucial aspect has wrongly held that the accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the deceased which is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence of the claimants. In the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence has to be reversed and we hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the KSRTC bus.

In view of the finding on point No. 1, since both the counsel have no objection to compute the compensation payable to the claimants, we consider the same as under.

The deceased was working in Police Department. After deduction towards PF and other heads, as per Ex. P11 -salary certificate, he was drawing salary of Rs. 17,500/- per month and if the same is multiplied by 12, his income is Rs. 2,10,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, and 2/3rd has to be assessed towards loss of dependency which comes to Rs. 1,40,000/- per annum. Considering his age as 56 years, he is left with four years service. We have to apply split multiplier. For four years, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 5,60,000/- and for the remaining, 5 multiplier has to be adopted and it comes to Rs. 70,000/-x5= Rs. 3,50,000/-. As such, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 9,10,000/- ( Rs. 5,60,000+ Rs. 3,50,000). In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 11,10,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Out of Rs. 11,10,000/-, a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon is apportioned in favour of the widow of the deceased -claimant No. 1 and remaining amount is granted in favour of the claimants 2 and 3. Out of Rs. 9,00,000/- granted in favour of claimant No. 1, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon shall be invested in any nationalized bank for a period of five years in the name of the first claimant and rest of the amount shall be released in favour of the claimant No. 1.

Appeal is accordingly allowed as above.