M. F. SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) WE have heard learned Counsel representing the appellants who are the wife and three children of the deceased as also technically, respondent No. 2 who is the mother of the deceased all of whom were claimants before the M. A. C. T. We have also heard the learned Counsel who represents the respondent Corporation and we have perused the record of the case as we are required to do.

( 2 ) THE deceased P. Balakrishna Reddy was working as a utility hand under Dredging corporation of India at Panambur and at about 8. 50 p. m. on the night of 28. 1. 90 he was supposed to have been proceeding towards Baikampady side from Panambur. The Corporation bus No. MEF 8488 came from Mangalore side and hit the cyclist from behind. The impact was rather serious because the deceased was thrown more than 20 ft. away or as per the eyewitness evidence he was dragged about 20 ft. away. The bus mounted the road divider and ultimately came to a halt on the opposite end of the road. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record held that this was a case of contributory negligence. Even though the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the higher side, it deducted 50 per cent on the ground that the deceased was responsible to the extent of 50 per cent by way of contributory negligence. The aggrieved appellants have assailed the correctness of this order essentially on two main grounds, the first being that there is no direct evidence on record to justify the attribution of negligence to the deceased and secondly, while doing the computation the learned Judge has committed an error by applying the multiplier of 12 when in fact, according to the Schedule to the Act since the deceased was aged 40 years the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. We must add in defence of the learned Judge who has decided the case that he had relied on a decision of this court reported in 1994 ACJ600 , ILR1993 KAR 2874 , 1994 (1 )Karlj283 wherein this High Court had followed the decision of the Apex Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaranlata Das 1993 ACJ748 , AIR1993 SC 1259 , (1993 )104 PLR309 , 1993 Supp (2 )SCC743.

( 3 ) MR. Sripathy, learned Counsel who represents the appellants is justified when he points out to us that the subsequent changes in the law have now been held to be applicable even in respect of incidents that had taken place earlier and proceedings that are pending and that consequently, appellants are entitled to the enhanced benefit of applying the higher multiplier.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT Corporations learned Counsel did submit that in the absence of the amendments specifically providing that they shall have retrospective application that they must be applied prospectively but, we are unable to uphold this submission in view of the well settled position in law.

( 5 ) THE main contest in this case is whether the deceased Reddy was guilty of contributory negligence. As far as the bus driver is concerned the Tribunal has held that negligence on his part has been established and among the several reasons for this, the main ones are that the eyewitness has stated that the bus came at a very high speed and that it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that it was the bus which collided against the cyclist. Secondly, apart from the eyewitness evidence, the sketch is another document which very clearly indicates that this bus though it was travelling on a national highway had mounted the road divider and came to a halt almost on the extreme opposite end and Mr. Sripathy is perhaps justified when he points out to us that even though the vehicles are entitled to move at a speed of 60 kmph on the national highways, that this was a spot near the entrance to the NPMT gate and the gate of the other NPMT factory and that while driving at night the bus driver was obliged to observe due care and caution and drive at a reasonable speed because this was comparatively a busy area and the bus was driven at such a high

Click Here to Read the rest of this document