IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that ex-gratia payments are voluntary and distinct from mandatory compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is based on liability.

JUDGMENT :

G. Basavaraja, J.

These appeals arise out of common judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Hirekerur (for short ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.C. No. 31/2012 c/w M.V.C. No. 32/2012 dated 31.08.2016.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief relevant facts leading to these appeals are as follows: M.V.C. No. 31/2012 is filed seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an accident, while M.V.C. No. 32/2012 is filed by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of Rameshappa Koller in the same road traffic accident.It is stated in the claim petitions that on 02.07.2012, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the petitioner was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-15/L-6562, from Agrahara Muchadi to Hirekerur, for the purpose of purchasing paddy seeds. The rider was operating the motorcycle in a slow and cautious manner on the Chikkerur-Hirekerur road. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-25-F-2217, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in violation of traffic rules and regulations, collided with the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner, who is the claimant in MVC No. 31/2012, sustained grievous injuries. The claimants in MVC No. 32/2012 filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of the motorcycle rider, Rameshappa Koller, due to the accident. It is further submitted in the claim petition that the deceased, aged 40 years, was earning Rs. 25,000 per month, and his untimely death has resulted in the loss of the primary bread-earner for the claimants. Consequently, the claimants have sought compensation from the respondents.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent, KSRTC, appeared through its counsel and filed statements of objections in both claim petitions, contending that the petitions are defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties, as the petitioners have not included the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as party respondents. The respondent denied all the averments made in the petitions as false and asserted that the bus driver was not responsible for the alleged accident. Furthermore, the respondent stated that the bus driver had lodged a private complaint before the JMFC, Hirekerur, in P.C. No. 11/2012, as the police did not accept the complaint filed by the bus driver.

4.1 In M.V.C. No. 32/2012, the respondent argued that if the Tribunal determines that the claimants are entitled to compensation, an amount of Rs.50,000 should be deducted from the compensation amount, as the respondent has already paid Rs.50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased towards funeral expenses on humanitarian grounds, despite there being no liability on its part. On these grounds, the respondent sought the dismissal of both claim petitions with costs.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed appropriate issues.

6. To substantiate the petitioners' case, four witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 4 in M.V.C. No. 31/2012, and 137 documents were marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.137. In M.V.C. No. 32/2012, one witness was examined as PW1, and eight documents were marked as Exhibits P.1 to P.8. Upon the conclusion of the petitioners' evidence, Dushanthkumar B.K., son of Kalegouda and the driver of the offending bus, was examined as R.W.1, and the authorization letter was marked as Exhibit R.1.

7. Upon hearing the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal partially allowed both claim petitions with costs, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,18,775 in M.V.C. No. 31/2012 and Rs. 8,45,120 in M.V.C. No. 32/2012, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred M.F.A. Nos. 104226/2016 and 104227/2016, seeking enhancement of compensation. Conversely, the respondent, KSRTC, has preferred M.F.A. Nos. 103515/2