The court clarified principles for determining compensation in fatal accidents, emphasizing income assessment, future prospects, and the importance of consortium claims.

JUDGMENT :

P. SREE SUDHA, J.

1. M.F.A. No.1021/2019 is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2018 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.4989/2017. M.F.A. No.7193/2018 is filed by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) challenging the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

2. The facts of the case is that on 11.08.2017 at about 7.45 a.m., one Ramanjaneyalu (deceased), while he was crossing J.C. Road, near Ravindra Kalakshetra, Bengaluru, a BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4355 driven by its driver, at high speed, in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. Due to the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. His wife, his minor daughter, his parents and his brother filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted Rs.18,73,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimants have preferred M.F.A. No.1021/2019 mainly contending that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and he was working as House Keeper at White Glove Properties and Estates Private Limited, Bengaluru, earning the gross salary of Rs.11,690/- per month. The claimants examined P.W.2 and produced pay slip (Ex.P.15) and the Tribunal had to deduct PF and professional tax, but wrongly taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,471/-. Therefore, requested for enhancement in the compensation. The claimants have also requested enhancement in the rate of interest at 8% per annum to 12% per annum.

4. M.F.A. No.7193/2018 is filed by the BMTC against the same judgment in which they disputed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was stated that the deceased Ramanjaneyalu was crossing the road, where there was no zebra crossing from west to east direction, and dashed the motorcycle which was moving by the side of the road and fell down. Thus, there is negligence on the part of the deceased and not on the part of the driver of the bus. The brother of the deceased gave the complaint and he was not an eyewitness to the incident. It is further contended that the rider of the motorcycle is the best person to narrate the incident, but he was not examined. Ex.P.6-IMV report shows scratch marks found on the front right side bumper, right side rear body of the bus and scratch marks on the front right side headlight dome cover, and front right side body of the motorcycle damaged. There was no major damage to the front bumper of the bus and therefore, it shows that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Under Ex.P.15-pay slip, Rs.685/- shows for conveyance allowance, Rs.1700/- for washing allowance and thus, an amount of Rs.7,799/- per month is to be taken instead of Rs.9,471/- per month and the rate of interest at 8% per annum is also to be reduced. It is further contended that the deceased joined service just 1 month 19 days prior to the date of accident and he was on probation. Therefore, he cannot be considered as a permanent employee and requested for reduction in the compensation.

5. Heard the arguments of both sides.

6. The claimants filed the copy of FIR, complaint, charge sheet, sketch, spot mahazer, IMV report, post mortem report and inquest report as per Exs.P1 to P8. The complaint was given by the brother of the deceased. It is argued that the brother of the deceased is not an eye witness to the occurrence. However, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus after conducting investigation. Respondent-BMTC examined R.W.1-driver of the bus, who has stated that there was no negligence on his part, but he has not given any complaint to the depot manager immediately after the accident and the charge sheet was not challenged by the BMTC.

7. Learned counsel for the BMTC has mainly relied upon the IM