IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR M.F.A. No.1622 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SALEM) LTD., NO.12, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD, SALEM – 636 007, TAMILNADU STATE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.BOPANNA.B., ADV.) AND 1. BORAMMA W/O LATE PUTTANAIKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. LAKSHMI, D/O LATE PUTTANAIKA AGED 18 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF HAADYA VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
PIN CODE : 571 401.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, K.H.DOUBLE ROAD, SHATHINAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 027.
4. THIBBAMMA, 2ND W/O.PUTTANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 5. LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O.MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 6. RANGASWAMY, S/O LATE PUTTANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDING AT MUDDIGUNDAM VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
PIN CODE – 571 440. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.PRAMOD, ADV. FOR R.1 & R.2, SMT.SUMANGALA A SWAMY, ADV. FOR R3, SRI.LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADV. FOR R.4 TO R.6) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:1.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.530/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,19,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATEOF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited (‘TNSTC’ for short) has filed this appeal, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 01-08-
2012 made in M.V.C.No.530/2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandya, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short).
2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition contending that the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of claimant No.2, deceased Puttanaika, are proceeding in KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA.09.F.3122 on 6.7.2008 towards Kollegala. At about 3.45 p.m. near Madhuvanahalli road, the bus belonging to TNSTC bearing Reg.No. TN.30.N. 0477 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against KSRTC Bus. Due to which, deceased Putttanaika who was traveling in KSRTC Bus sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimants in claim petition contended, that, the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing Flower Vending business and also doing coolie work and due to his untimely death, the family has lost the bread earner and therefore, sought for compensation of Rs.8,05,000/-.
3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition against them and also alleging that due to negligence on the part of the drivers of the bus belonging to each other, the accident occurred and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
5. In order to prove the case of the claimants, 2nd claimant got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and also got examined one of the witness as PW2. On behalf of the respondents, the Conductor of the KSRTC bus has been examined as RW1. The driver of TNSTC bus has been examined as RW2 and the Conductor of the said bus has been examined as RW3 and two documents have been marked asExs.R1 and R2.
6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the IMV report, copy of the complaint and charge sheet held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of TSTC bus accident occurred. As a result of which, the deceased Puttanaika, traveling in KSRTC Bus died on the spot. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, The Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- p.m., deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses since the claimants are more than three and applying multiplier ‘9’ , since the deceased was aged about 60 years as on the date of death, awarded a sum of Rs.3,64,500/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.55,000/- towards conventional heads and in all, Rs.4,19,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Since the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of TNSTC bus, the liability has been fastened on TNSTC to compensate the claimants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Managing Director, TNSTC has filed this appeal.
7. Sri. Bopanna B., learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is contrary to the law as the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC Bus. Further, he contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that accident had taken place on account of contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the buses and that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and same is liable to be modified.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents argued in support of the judgment and award of the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and other relevant records.
10. The occurrence of the accident and death of deceased Puttanaika is not in dispute. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC Bus as well as TNSTC bus. The evidence has been let into show that there is a contributory negligence. However, the Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence let in by the TNSTC has fastened the liability on the appellant which is contrary to law. The records produced by the parties clearly disclose that the police have registered a case against the driver of TNSTC bus. The chargesheet filed against the driver of the said bus has not been question and in fact, some of the passengers who are traveling in both the buses have filed claim petition seeking compensation and in the said petitions, the liability has been fasted on TNSTC to compensate the claimants. The copy of the order made in MVC 157/2009 has been produced by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, has held that due to the negligence on the part of the driver of TNSTC bus, the accident occurred and judgment passed in MVC No.157/2009 has attained finality as the management of TNSTC has compensated the claimants therein. The said contention is again made in this appeal. Hence, the same is rejected.
11. Regarding quantum of compensation is concerned, the accident occurred in the year 2008. Deceased was working as Flower Vendor and also doing coolie work. The Tribunal, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased since there are more than three claimants, applying multiplier ‘9’ as he was aged about 60 years, awarded a sum of Rs.3,64,500/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and in all, Rs.4,19,500/- with 6% interest p.a. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned. The appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the well considered judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and award dated 1st August 2012 passed in M.V.C.No.530/2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandya, is confirmed.
The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandya, for disbursement.
Sd/- JUDGE tsn*