THE COURT HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN FIXING THE MONTHLY INCOME OF THE DECEASED AT RS.3,000/- AND IN APPLYING A MULTIPLIER OF 14. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN NOT AWARDING ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, LOSS OF ESTATE, AND FUNERAL EXPENSES.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/claimants, challenging the award dated 21.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.190/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.4,71,800/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioners/claimants for the death of K.Babu @ Ravindra Babu.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 (1) © of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-on account of the death of K.Babu @ Ravindra Babu, who is the father of the 2nd petitioner, husband of the 1st petitioner and son of the 3rd petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.02.2012.

4. The facts show that on 07.02.2012 at about 02.20 p.m. while the deceased K.Babu @ Ravindra Babu was proceeding on his bicycle on Chennai-Bangalore bye pass road, Reddigunta, the driver of KSRTC by name K.Manjunath, drove the bus bearing No.KA01F 9229 from Bangalore side, dashed behind the deceased, as a result, he fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries, and he was shifted to Govt. Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries at 03.05 p.m. On report, SI of Police, Traffic P.S., Chittoor registered case in Cr.No.16/2012 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver. The deceased was working as a Senior Mason, and used to construct houses on contract basis by deputing five masons and coolies to various places in and around Chittoor, and he used to get Rs.400/-per day as a mason and Rs.200/-per day as commission, and used to contribute the same to the petitioners for their welfare. The petitioners have no other earning member in the family and the petitioners solely depended on the earnings of the deceased. Due to the death of deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner, and were put to hardship and mental agony.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/KSRTC filed a counter resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on part of the bus driver of the crime bus, nature of injuries, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the deceased suddenly came across the bus from right side to left side, and came into contact with the left portion of the bus. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, and that there is no negligence on the part of driver of KSRTC Bus, and the claim of the petitioners is excessive.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA 01F 9229?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as R.W-1 and got marked Ex.B-1.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, and further, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,71,800/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

9. The plea of the respondent/KSRTC is that the deceased suddenly came across the bus from right side to left side and came into contact with the