IN1THEHKH{COURT(H7KARNKDMQXATBANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF' SEPTEMBER.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEJKL,
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. B;V'.VNAGAR2§THNA
M.F'.A.N'O.10382/.20CiG. ax/IV)'
c/w. M.F.A.1'$Q.:10§)87;f20G~8(MV]
BETWEEN; A
M.F.A.No. 1'0;?§:E',2;/:2V(')£5_6': ~ L
1 THE KSRTC
SMANTH1
(REPRE-SEN_TD. SYTTS CHIEF' LAW OFFICER)
2, .» €3I9§.ANDV.'P;'¥.;'§TvI«{A,:
NmJL».R
" ~ DRNER OF KSRTC
" {$70 1 E5292
KOLAKDEPOT
3 KRISHNA KUMAR
A' D S,-'O SAIBABA,
A '- AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
SEETHARAAMPURA,
0AM GOAL PRAKASHAM DISTRICT.
55.
{BySHfi:SH"Hfl}U\ANAND,ADVJ
.uAPPELLANTS
AND:
1
B S MANJULA
W'/0 LATE GANGADHARAIAH :
AGE 38 YEARS ;. "
R/AT 9TH CROSS ,ASHOK NAGAR,
TUMKUR
SGKARUNESH
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH
MAJOR, ~
R/AT 9TH CROSS, ASHGK N__AG-AER"
TUMKUR- "
SGA.JFaY A
S/O LATE "NGAiD{3DHA._E§AIA_}{- A
"
R/AT 9TH C1ROS;?a_ASHOK' NAGAR,
TUMKI_IR'.»j-. * * ~
H.RESPONDENTS
(By;_b1’i:_V E :=3ID’DAR’A1\&A1AH, ADV. FOR R1–3)
A V T:{1s%jA~.MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AT.AGA1NsT%’ = JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
7.A.4_%;:200_é3′ ?;;é,Aé§sED IN MVC NO. 1092/96 ON THE FILE
_ M OF4 THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN] AND MACT,
H ‘ A T'{31y1KtjN, AWARDING A
COMPENSNHON OF
9
./
RS.7,30,048/~ WITH INTEREST @ 6% PA FROM ‘THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. T
. BETWEEN:
M.F.A.NO.10087/2006:
1 B s MANJULA
W/O LATE GANGADHARATAH
AGED ABOUT 49.yRs_.~– –.
2 SGKARUNESH._ V .
s/0 LATEvGANGAIJHARA1;.A}’i”T.. ; 1-
AGED AEQUT 2:5 {RS1 . ”
3 s G s/Q AGED A;EoU;f1= ZSYRS '
ALL R/,AT N.Q’.1_1..o GURURAGHVENDRA
N1L’AyA CROSS 3121:) MAIN {ST STAGE
_ .BE1\/11; L_AYOUT’*.BASAVESHWARANAGAR
.. BANGALGRE 79
. .. APPELLANTS
A ‘(Ey»s;%i:’ €2%:1E’A’v’3iAT)DARA1vLA1AH COUNSEL)
A’ 1 THE GENERAL MANAGER KSRTC
SHANTHINAGAR K.H.ROAD /E’/.’~
BANGALORE 27
2. M.F.A.No.l0382/2006 is filed by the K$RTC
challenging not only the liability fixed on it, but
quantum of compensation awarded in favouri” .
claimants in M.V.C.No.1092/98.onthe”file::’ofll’MAC’F,jV A
Tumkur. M.F..A.No.10087/06 iggfiiéfd “by
being not satisfied with ofggcorripensation
fixed by the MACT and alsoi-the’g’:con.tribntory negligence
apportioned between involved in
the accident, ;”ll’\2l\lre have heard
these two apgeég. if’.g –
3. or__ the ‘–“sal<;e»ofaconv-eriience the parties shall be
referred tofllasv per before the tribunal.
gclailrnants are the legal heirs of one
who was travelling in the KSRTC bus
bearing F5292 on 8.8.96 as a passenger from
Kolar Bangalore. When the bus reached Narasapura
Village, on account of rash and negligent driving of the
by the driver, it dashed against an on coming lorry
5%»:-
bearing No.AP26/1276, which resulted in the death of
Gangadharaiah on the spot.
5. According to the claimants, he wasHwo._rkijngll’as*
lecturer in District Institute of 8:’
Kolar. He was getting a salary of .l”Fw,,2()0
also an agriculturist and getting sepa1’ater–inco,:me from
agricultural sources. ‘ ._ «.
6. The casejwas contested’ According
to the occurred on account of rash
and negligent? driv:ing”~o:il”–the loriqfdriver.
7. Iri.__orr:ler to prove.__the’ir respective contentions, two
witnesses were ‘eicanfiined on behalf of he claimants as
andflmthey relied upon Exs.P~1 to P–~l2. On
the driver of the bus, Chand Pasha,
was examined as RW1 and he relied upon Exs.R—-1 to
it The tribunal considering the evidence let in by the
l”‘–parties equally apportioned the contributory negligence
2 “on the drivers of both the vehicles and awarded
§,,.
Ksiaar
compensation of 730,048/«-. This said judgment and
award is called in question in these two appea_1s._m~.
8. Learned counsel for the cilairnants
the driver of the bus was convicted in the ‘ca~se*,
and the charge sheet was fiiedjagainsi: it
submits that in Diifiision Bench
of this court in an arising out
of another has held that
the Vresoonsible to pay the
he contends that the liability
saddled’ lorry has to be set aside
andgthe entire_V_V”corrrpensation has to be paid by the
9. ..I4ie”‘i’i,1rther contends that the trial court has
committed a serious error in not awarding
Aicoirnpensation adequately. According to him, the
./’9
deceased was working as a lecturer and on promotion,
he was transferred to Chitradurga and he hadéwlorked
for only 20 days and he had drawn Rs.7 _
days as could be seen from IBJ:{,VI?’-9. _hei ”
contends that the salary of
than Rs.10,700/~ and in arlflditionlhe: was
agricultural income. colntendsethat the
finding of the ‘dependency at
Rs.7,2o,o48/f }_1as_ to contends
that the According
to hiII1v;V have been applied by
the further contends that the
compensation lawarded ‘under the conventional heads is
l l –als”o— or1i.the’* lower side.
10.?” “contra, learned counsel for the KSRTC
ll”fl,:co;1tend’s that the trial court has committed an error in
-l that the KSRTC driver was responsible for the
” “clause of the accident. According to him, the documents
%
produced by the claimants and the evidence of RW1
would go to show that the accident has occu.rredi_i’on
account of rash and negligent driving of the ~
lorry. She further contends it
compensation awarded by the
side and requests the to allow’ . of
KSRTC and dismiss the appeai -of-the_ciairnantsv;E
11. I-Iaving§.hear’_’c1 the parties, we have
to consider’thesfoiiowing.–two in these two appeals
” thteftribunal was justified in holding
that”the.VA’ac:c1″dent occurred on account of the
écontributitwryi negiigence of both the vehicles?
‘A _vd:’Whether the compensation awarded by the
tiiibviinai is on the lower side or higher side’?
12. far as point No.1 is concerned, in View of the
of this court in 1Vi.F.A.No.5145/2003 dated
M __ijO.12.2007, we are of the opinion that the finding of the
bi
10
tribunal has to be set aside by holding that the accident
has occurred on account of rash and negligent dyrivinlgaof
the KSRTC bus since the driver has been .
the criminal case. When the driver._has_’lbeeircolrivicted id’
in a criminal case, we are of the opinioii
in regard to the contributory negligerice has * V L’
to be accepted by us…’ Ac.cordingly_, we’ answer point
No.1 in the affirmative. it
13. Insofar Vleoncemed, it is not in
dispute that7.the_f9deceasVed._ was 49 years old and the
learned wcotiynselllflor :_th–e”‘K.SRTC contends that as per
nposj-:n.ortem the age of the deceased has to be
years. But the SSLC marks card and
‘records produced by the claimants would
reyealthatlllthe age of the deceased as 49 years. Be that
“as Inlay, whether the deceased is 49 years or 50 years,
lltheflsproper multiplier to be applied is 13 and not 12. So
it far as the income of the deceased is concerned.
/5:
ll
‘ admittedly he was working’ as a lecturer in a
Government Training Institute. On promotion_4.hVe..4_h~ad
worked as a lecturer for 20 days. Ex.P~8 .
certificate for 20 days which discloses that” l”
salary of Rs.7,200/-. If the satne’eonverted:uii5ito’l7a:
monthly salary, it would oorn’e~»..to “it is
submitted that he has a drayvn-vVtl:.a–e”‘salary” aspeir Ex.P~9
on promotion from the post of
Deputy Direot,r_niQf if the salary on
the date eijf 1″(‘)H,7O0/-, a sum of
Rs. 1 ;~ professional tax,
income the net salary would be
Rs.1_O..00O/’- p.rn…’-anvdR’s.1,120,000/- p.a., out of which
. if “We deduct 1/’V3?d”‘towards personal expenses it would
–. Since he was a government
sewan_t~,*\ye* have to apply split multiplier. At the age of
hewtiould have attained the age of superannuation.
it flherefore, we can take multiplier of 10 considering the
” ~-loss of dependency at the rate of Rs.80,000/– p.a. which
fie:
E3
entitled for 3 total compensation of Rs.9,5(),00O/– with
interest at 6% 13.21.
16. Out of the enhanced compensation
total compensation with accruecii inte1*evst_tliie-fe0Iif§dV”be”«
deposited in any nationalised bankiiias ap§§éi;19ti0nec’ié.’by K
the tribunal for an initial pefi’Q:ti’ of fiVe._xr:eai*s.flTEEaeh of
the claimants are :« the eeriodical
interest. The rest of theeomijensatierifsliall be released
tothe<jann?fiié§j].Ex I"; t~fe°'e5
Sd/~
JUDGE
Sd/-
EUDGE