Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri.R.Prakash on 10 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10Th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.2976 OF 2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
The Managing Director,
Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation,
Central Office,
K.H.Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560 027. ... Appellant
(By Sri. D.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. R Prakash,
S/o Late. Rangaswamy,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at Kongarahalli Village,
Kollegal Taluk,
Chamarajanagar Dist-571 440. ... Respondent
(By Sri. D.S.Hosmath, Advocate)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:14.01.2016 passed
in MVC No.06/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, at Kollegal, awarding a compensation of Rs.
8,11,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of depositing.
2
This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this
Court, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) has been filed by the BMTC (for short,
'Corporation') being aggrieved by the judgment dated
14.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kollegal in MVC No.06/2015.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 09.09.2013 at about 1.15
p.m. near Jakkasandra bus stand, Bangalore town, the
deceased R.Pradeep was crossing the road. At that
time, a BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01/FA-
328 which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of
the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimant who is the brother of the
deceased filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act
seeking compensation for the death of the deceased
along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and
respondent No.3 filed written statement in which the
averments made in the petition were denied. The
age, occupation and income of the deceased are
denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false
and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded
that the accident was due to the negligence of the
deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the
claimant was a major and he was not depending upon
the deceased. It was further pleaded that the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is
exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to
prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On
behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as
RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to
Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned
judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place
on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which,
the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the
injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,11,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the
Corporation to deposit the compensation amount
along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has
been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimant was the brother of the
deceased and he was not depending upon the income
of the deceased. Therefore, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
Secondly, the monthly income assessed by the
Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- is on the higher side since the
claimant has not produced any document to prove the
income of the deceased. Hence he sought for allowing
the appeal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, at the time of the accident the deceased
was aged about 23 years and the claimant is entirely
depending upon the income of the deceased. The
deceased was working as a supplier of Srinivasa Bar
and Restaurant and was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. Considering the evidence of the parties and
considering the materials available on record the
Tribunal has granted just and reasonable
compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award and original
records.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased died in
the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
At the time of the accident the deceased was
working as a supplier in Srinivasa Bar and Restaurant.
Even though the claimant has claimed that the
deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he has
not produced any document to establish the same.
Considering the evidence of the parties and
considering the materials available on record, the
Tribunal is justified in assessing the monthly income
of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month.
The claimant is the only brother of the deceased
and he is entirely depending upon the income of the
deceased. In his evidence he has categorically stated
that he is depending upon the income of the
deceased. To disprove the same, the respondent has
not elicited any worthwhile information in the cross-
examination. Considering the evidence of PW1 and
considering the documents produced by the claimant,
the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable
compensation. There is no error in the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, I decline to
interfere with the judgment and award. Accordingly,
appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
