The assessment of negligence in road accidents relies on charge sheets and evidence presented, affecting the awarded compensation based on legal precedent related to loss assessment and family dependency.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. Both the appeals are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 26.05.2015 passed in MVC No.7909/2010 by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that, claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a road traffic accident which occurred on 29.07.2010, the wife and children of the deceased instituted claim proceedings arraying the owner and insurer of the offending bus as respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as mother of the deceased as respondent No.3. The owner of the offending bus remained exparte before the Tribunal. The claim proceedings were contested by the insurer of the bus.

4. The Tribunal by the judgment and award dated 26.05.2015 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,79,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, MFA No.5177/2015 is filed by the insurer and MFA No.3774/2018 is filed by the claimants.

5. Learned counsel - Sri.Ashok N Patil appearing for the appellant/insurer assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal vehemently contends that the accident being a head on collision between the vehicle that was being driven by the deceased and the bus, the Tribunal ought to have held that both the drivers were negligent in causing the accident in question. It is further contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side as well as deduction of 1/4^th made by the Tribunal is also excessive. Hence, learned counsel seeks for allowing the above appeal and granting of the reliefs sought for.

6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.K.Vasanth appearing for the claimants justifying the finding of the Tribunal on negligence, contends that the charge sheet having been filed against the driver of the bus and the insurer not having examined any eye witness, the finding of the Tribunal is just and proper. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side since future prospects has not been awarded. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of quantum of compensation.

7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused.

8. The questions that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence, is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?

(ii) Whether the quantum of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper?

RE. QUESTION No.(i):

9. The claimants in the claim petition have averred that when the deceased was driving the Eicher Van from Anantapuram to Gutti, a bus being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side of the road and hit the vehicle being driven by the deceased. The insurer of the bus in the statement of objections has specifically averred that the negligence in causing the accident is on the part of the driver of Eicher Van. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW1, who is not an eye witness. However, the claimants have produced copy of the FIR (Ex.P-1) and charge sheet (Ex.P-9). The driver of bus has been charge sheeted under Section 337 and 304(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The