JUDGMENT :

Both the appeals are filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘Corporation) under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 18.12.2013 passed by the MACT, Tumkur in MVC Nos.590/2008 and 8267/2009, respectively. Since the challenge is to the same judgment, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being passed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 01.02.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. the deceased Rudrappa was proceeding on his moped near Nagenahalli gate, Bengaluru – Doddaballapura road. At that time, the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA40/F92 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the moped. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 53 years at the time of accident, was working as a conductor and was earning Rs.11,955/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.9,55,000/- along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself. 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 claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW1 and got exhibited 12 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, driver of the bus was examined as RW1 but no documents were marked. 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 claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,77,770/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest.

6. Being aggrieved, the claimants in MVC No.590/2008 stated to be pending before the MACT, Tumkur, claiming compensation towards the death of very same person have filed MFA No.8655/2010 and the Corporation, questioning the finding on negligence and quantum and also dispute as regards the legal heirs of deceased Rudrappa filed MFA No.988/2011.

7. This Court, by a common judgment dated 11.02.2011, allowed both the appeals, set aide the judgment and award passed in MFA No.8267/2009 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for considering MVC No.590/2008 along with MVC No.8267/2009. After remand, the Tribunal by a common judgment and award dated 18.12.2013 allowed the petitions. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,28,692/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved the Corporation has filed these appeals.

8. The learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased who was driving the moped, but the Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver of the KSRTC bus was negligent in causing the accident.

Secondly, the Tribunal has wrongly given a finding that the bus was travelling from South to North, in fact the bus was coming from North to South from Doddaballapura to Bengaluru. It is very clear from Ex.P4 – spot sketch that the bus was proceeding right side of the road, the rider of the moped was coming extreme right side and dashed