Point of Law: Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, defines the term ‘legal representative’ as “Legal Representative” means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased.”

JUDGMENT :

K.S.Hemalekha, J.

The present appeal is preferred by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BMTC-Corporation’ for Short) assailing the judgment and award dated 17.09.2016 passed in MVC.No.3101/2015 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru SCCH-7 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short), on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.79,10,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and fastened the liability upon the BMTC-Corporation.

2. The facts relevant that arise in this present miscellaneous first appeal is that the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1.00 crore with interest @ 12% per annum on account of death of one Pattabiraman .G, S/o late Govinda Shetty. M, who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 12.07.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding as a rider in his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51-EN-7029 and when he reached in front of MLA Satish Reddy’s House, Hongasandra, Begur Main Road, Bengaluru, the BMTC bus driven by its driver bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4296 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased’s motor cycle and due to which, the deceased fell down and the bus ran over the deceased’s head. Claimant No.1 is the first wife of the deceased, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children through first wife, claimant No.4 is the second wife of the deceased and claimant No.5 is the minor son of the deceased through second wife and they being the legal heirs contended they are entitled for compensation. According to the claimants the deceased was aged about 47 years and was working as a Project Manager (Construction) at Vastu Properties and was drawing a salary of Rs.50,000/-per month at the time of the accident and the claimants were solely depending upon the income of the deceased.

3. It is stated by the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus and a case has been registered by the Madiwala Traffic Police against the driver of the BMTC bus in Crime No.114/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC and as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus the claimants sought to contend that the respondents are liable to pay the compensation as stated in the claim petition.

4. In pursuant to the notice ordered by the Tribunal, the BMTC-Corporation had appeared and filed its objections contending that the claim sought by the claimants is exorbitant and is not sustainable in law. According to the BMTC–Corporation, the driver of the bus bearing reg. No.KA-01-f-4296 was driving the bus on the left side of the road by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and when the said bus reached near MLA Satish Reddy’s house main road, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle (the deceased) was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and was in a high speed and on a wrong side and while overtaking the bus from behind by seeing the coming vehicles from the opposite side fell on the road and touched the right side back wheel of the BMTC bus and died on the spot. It is stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself and the driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. It is further averred that a false criminal case has been leveled against the driver of the bus and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased SRI. PATTABIR