rd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE'
DATED THIS THE 9%" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009- L
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE s._A.BpUL _NA2Ei:ERV""'
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL E0.
BETWEEN :
The Managing Director V
Bangalore Metropolitan _ v "
Transport Corporation [BMTCJA L
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,~-- V F '
Bangalore -- 27 _ ' APPELLANT
{By Sri: A. Rai}i:;haf'1-kar &'-S-udaréhan. M., Advs.)
AND :
1. sn:."'G.'H. Lak$I1riairiaray'ar1a
Aged aboutv 53 years.'
S/_o. 1até"S_I'1'.VHuchaiah
'-'L. Prakaah' H """ " 'V
. ' 2 , Agodaabéout, 32 years
V _ S ,1 or Lakshminarayana
3. .' ' 'Ptillshpalatha
Ageai about 22 years
D/Q. 'Sri. G.H. Lakshrninarayana
_ are r/a. N0329, I Main Road
"Gm Cross, Vinayakanagar
Annasandra Paiya
3
1.4.2003 at about 4.45 p.m., the deceased was traveling in
a BTS bus bearing registration No. KA--0l~F~» 1807 belonging
to the appellant/ Corporation. The bus
Rama Temple bus stop at Annasandra Palya for H
the passengers. While the deceased:-Was'-alightingjirointthe
front door of the bus, all of a sudden:the-A.A_driver"sVtarted
bus and moved in a rash in aVrasngand."negligent Eaanrié},
as a result of which, the. decease:d'g_:~1o'st. balance. and fell
down from the bus resulting in grievous
injuries and lateril' The
appellant/ and filed its
statement of basis of the pleadings of the
parties, the fl'ribunal«VI'ra1t-ied.":thé. following issues:
' 1.x Whether""petitioners prove that one Smt.
A succumbed to grievous injuries in
Rm o~c:(:1.iiTed on 1.4.2003 at about 4.45 pm. at
teiriiple bus stop, on Annasandrapalya
A=,}_'\V/lail7l~ Annasandrapalya, Bangalore, on
_g account of actionable negligent driving of the
V " Viwdgriver of the BMTC bus bearing No.KA--Ol-F~
1807 ?
-»~"'*'""::a-"
.w
4
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation from the respondents ?
3. What order or award ? ”
3. The claimant No.2 was examined as
witness by name Prathap was examined as 0′
“documents Exs.P.l to 8 have
evidence. However no evidence was 1ei._m- on behalf of the ”
Corporation. On appreciation of £h.éfev1defi¢¢.qh ‘record, the
Tribunal has attributed:”eontribiitoryVinegligencell to an
extent of 10% dfi the deceased 909/oi negligence
1.
Q; the appellant}C1o:rporatiori:0′: Thetllllribunal has awarded
00 compensation 0 ‘
Towards of Rs. 15,000-00
‘1″ awards F;une..ra1ll& 0bsequies Rs. 10,000–0O
.ltra.nspori:lation of body Rs. 5,000~00
estate Rs. 5,000-00
‘l’owa–_rds~.1:oss of dependency Rs.2,64,000–00
.. fI’_owar’ds Medical expenses Rs. 50 000-00
TOTAL Rs.3.49,000–O0
After deducting 10% of the compensation out of the saigd
amount, the Tribunal awarded a compensationgllfiof
Rs.3, 14,100/-.
4. Learned Counsel for the
would contend that having to.” the on
record, the Tribunal was not attributing only
10% of the negligence to i’EtS11bn1itted that
even as per the.vc_oro..plaiiit’ deceased
was alighting__.ti1e .btis.,.’;’xvhei1_titwas the move. Therefore,
the TribL1_nal_ sholiJ_ld…h3aVe’attributed contributory negligence
to an extenttto 5O%._to’-ltAhe_’deceased. It is further submitted
that the» deceased “Wash aged 56 years at the time of
laceidlent. 3–.”which is clear from the post mortem report.
intiltiplier to be applied is 9 as per the
decision Apex Court in SARALA VARMA AND
l”-.~u._’OTHERS mam: TRANSPORT CORPORATION Arm
it1StoIfi3R(2oo9 ACJ 1293). It is further submitted that
fjeveri. the compensation on the other conventional heads is
.5
lit
excessive. On the other hand, learned Counsel forthe
claimants submits that the deceased was not respo_nsib«Ie”‘.V’
for the accident in any manner. Therefore, deducting’ ‘
of the compensation is itself erroneous… It is iutrthesrfpargzled
that the award of compensation by the Tifii3una1._is 7.’
proper.
5. I have carefuliy”considerzedu arguments of the
learned Counsel for tb¢””i-\.’.’~–1′:tie\9″‘ ,¥’9_adev_ ifthe Bar and
perused the mai:eria1s’_piaced€ record.’ it
6. for the appellant/ Corporation
has made’eya:1ab1eV_’ti;g:~.;¥e¢§fa:;’ of the Tribunal. A careful
perusal . of th4e”c:ornp1ain-tdfiled by P.W.2 shows that the
“VV’decea’.’9ed iwasivi.alightingthe bus when it was on move. in
his =e\fidenee’; hehas given a different version. The Tribunal
was ofthe that at an undisputed point of time when
‘ ‘RW. ..hirnseIf has stated in the complaint that the
deceas-ed was alighting the bus when it was moving.
the said version, the Tribunal attributed
7
contributory negligence at 10% on the deceased. The
finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is on appreciation
of the evidence on record and the said finding does not”
for interference. As per the RM. report, the dec.easerl:Vp’v.;tas*. ”
aged about 56 years. As per Sara1a_.VarzT1a’s’
the proper multiplier for a person who dies” or’gets.”injVuree1″‘iii
at the age of 56 in a motoriyehicle ppfilge
Tribunal was right in holding gtphell liiieorhe the
deceased at the relevant;:«._pfc’.int–‘_V:of p.m.
and the Tribunal was 1/3″ of her
income towards”peijsonallexpenseésITher.ei’ore. by applying
the multiplie_rT*olf .’3;::.3 »total ‘-.lvoss’vdependency comes to
Rs.2,16,:OO0′-/’– — awarded by the
Tribunal. award ° compensation on all other
_ conveI_1tion.al heads and award of medical expenses is just
claimants are entitled for compensation as
uncleztw
A’Fowa__3’dsVl’1i’)ss of consortium Rs. 15,000–0O
AA Toxyards Funeral & Obsequies Rs. 10,000–00
–TFoyvards transportation of body Rs. 5,000-O0
Towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000-00
1:? 1;)
‘ ‘~§
Towards loss of dependency Rs.2,16,000–OO..___
Towards Medical expenses Rs. 50,000.{GC)h”–«_l.”‘._’
TOTAL . Rs.3,01,Qo’o4-o;o–..__f ;_.
After deducting 10% towards contribiitory { 4J:1’E§gI4i’gééi3i§’:Vg’3.3_ f
attributed to the deceased; the «balance
Rs.2,70,900/–. The said amount”l’sVhaEl_carry-.iri:teres.tf§at 6%
p.a. from the date of appli:cation:_’A
7. In ‘S-iicceeds and it is
accordingly are entitled for
a total with interest at 6%
p.a. fronilt-he date till the date of deposit. The
apportionrrlerit of . VVc.oInpe’r’i’sation and other directions
“V’regarvzdiliigdthe denosit’**’of the amount ordered by the
are :.suLst’ained. The amount in deposit shall be
transferredd the Tribunal. No costs.
Sdl 1:.
Judge