The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from the R Valli case to determine the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT

M.G. Uma, J. - MFA No. 8118 of 2015 is filed by Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short 'BMTC'), challenging the judgment and award dated 22.06.2015 passed in MVC No. 58 of 2013 on the file of learned XIII Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, allowing the claim petition by the claimants and awarding compensation of Rs. 49,86,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. for the death of deceased Ramathirtha.

2. MFA No. 5626 of 2018 is filed belatedly after 1008 days by the claimants aggrieved by the above said judgment and award seeking enhancement of compensation awarded.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

4. Heard Shri D Vijayakumar, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri K Shantharaj, learned advocate for the respondents and vice versa.

5. Brief facts of the case are that, the deceased Ramathirtha was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-02-HF-4476 on 26.08.2012 at 12.30 p.m. on Peenya Police Station Road, along with his son Abhishek. The BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01-FA-1834 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. The rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, but he succumbed to the fatal injuries. The pillion rider lodged the first information against the driver of the offending bus. The petitioners being the wife, daughter, son and mother of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of the deceased.

6. The respondent-BMTC being the owner of the offending bus contested the petition contending that the bus was never involved in the accident. It was a self fall which resulted in the death of motor cyclist. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. The claimants examined PWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs. P1 to 21 in support of their claim. The respondent examined RWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs. R1 to 9 in support of its contention. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 49,86,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The owner of the bus has preferred the appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award, whereas, the claimants have also filed their appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Shri D Vijayakumar, learned advocate for BMTC contended that the bus in question was not involved in the accident. The deceased fell down from the motor cycle as there was gravels on the road. The BMTC bus has been falsely implicated only to claim compensation. He further submitted that petitioner No. 3 said to be the pillion rider was not examined before the Court to prove the factum of accident. PW3 examined as eye witness has not supported the contention of the claimants. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal could not have allowed the petition. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

9. Shri K Shantharaj, learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the police records which are marked before the Tribunal disclose that there was a road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by RW1. The evidence of RWs. 1 to 3 is self serving statements which are not supported by any materials. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation. However, the Tribunal has not assessed the just compensation. The Tribunal erred in adopting split multiplier. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R Valli and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. and prayed for awarding just compensation.

10. We have carefully considered the contentions urged by learned advocates on both sides.

11. It is the contention of claimants that the