The court upheld the negligence finding against the bus driver, reaffirming that evidence such as charge sheets can substantiate claims of liability despite the absence of eye-witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. Both the appeals are filed calling question the judgment and award dated 31.1.2017 passed in MVC No.3998/2015 by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member MACT, Bengaluru, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’]. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was a 19 year old girl as on the date of the accident i.e., on 31.8.2015, her parents and sisters instituted claim proceedings. It is the case of the claimants that when the deceased was crossing the Bengaluru - Tumakuru National Highway in front of Shobha Apartments, a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘KSRTC’] bus being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased causing the accident in question, wherein the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The KSRTC was arrayed as respondent in the claim proceedings and they contested the same. The Tribunal vide the judgment and award dated 31.1.2017 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,25,000/- together with interest at 8% p.a. Being aggrieved, the KSRTC has preferred MFA No.5647/2017 and the claimants have preferred MFA No.5274/2017.

4. Learned counsel Sri F.S.Dabali for the KSRTC assailing the finding on negligence, recorded by the Tribunal contends that the claimants have not examined any eye- witness to the accident and the driver of the bus having been examined as RW.1, the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased also contributed in causing the accident in question. Referring to the sketch (Ex.P4), it is further contended that the accident occurred on a one way road and the place, where the deceased was crossing, did not have a pedestrian crossing. That the road was a National Highway, which is barricaded by iron bars, on both sides and the deceased ought not to have crossed the road at the said place. Hence, it is contended that the findings on negligence recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous. It is also contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side and the interest awarded at 8% p.a., is excessive.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants justifies the finding on negligence recorded by the Tribunal and contended that no independent eye-witness has been examined by the respondent. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side and seeks for enhancement of the compensation.

6. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. 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 compensation awarded is just and proper?

Re. question No.(i):

7. The claimants have averred in the claim petition that when the deceased was crossing Bengaluru – Tumakuru National Highway carefully, suddenly a KSRTC bus being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the deceased. In the statement of objections filed by the KSRTC before the Tribunal, it was averred that the driver of the bus was moving at moderate speed and the deceased was crossing the road without following the traffic rules and it was prohibited for the public to walk on the road. Clai